More to provoke reaction than anything else:
What did you think of Hunt's budget?
- Stupid game playing (47%, 269 Votes)
- A disaster for the UK (26%, 150 Votes)
- A total failure (25%, 141 Votes)
- A great success (2%, 9 Votes)
Total Voters: 569
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Listening to the speech much of it sounded quite reasonable….. as a work of fiction.
Your previous post about public sector investment hits the nail on the head. Need to dust off Galbraith’s “Affluent Society”… not sure anyone skewered this better before or since.
I really should re-read it
My copy is so old I know there is a photo of a girlfriend from 45+ years ago in it as a book mark. I have no idea why – but it has survived many house moves since the 70s.
There was a Budget? Who for? What did I miss? What did they screw up this time? How bad could it be (silly question – this is the Conservatives after all)?
Meanwhile, out there in Broke Britain, Lord Offord, apparently an undersecretary in the forgotten undergrowth of the Scottish Office for Nothing At All; he has been shoved out there on BBC GMS to tell us – as far as I can understand the mad logic of Scottish Conservatives – that closing the Ineos Grangemouth plant (Scotland – the UK’s only oil producer, only oil refinery), is all it seems actually a clever part of the green transition masterplan. Really; this was just after the interviewer had asked why the government couldn’t be more honest about the huge budget tax increases, being spun by Conservative politicians as tax cuts.
When the interviewer pointed out that Grangemouth was Scotland’s only oil refinery, Offord cheerfully pointed out that it was still fine, because the UK had sufficient other oil refineries (he is a Conservative Scot, so of course feels uniquely entitled to the privilege of mugging Scotland at his pleasure). We can see the masterstroke here, as public spend is cut, the Scottish Budget loses out, the demographics are on an extinction course, and the Scottish economy slowly shrinks to insignificance and dependency; it is all fine – the UK will still have an economy.
Meanwhile, the Scots along with everyone else, can celebrate the 5% increase in the energy price cap, which cranks up the cost of heating the average house to around £1,928 from 1st January, 2024. As temperatures plunge, winter arrives and people shiver in their homes, look on the bright side; it is all part of the grand Conservative green energy transition plan, without needlessly spending any money on green energy, or guaranteeing Britain’s energy security: just do without. You have had this for thirteen years, so you know how it works. It doesn’t; you have to cope.
Now, back to the important stuff; tax cuts for all those who can afford the bills, or are not actually killed off by hypothermia.
Offord is truly dire
It was telling that even Nick Robinson on R4Today this am described Hunt’s claims when interviewing him, as ‘dishonest’. Cue usual waffle from Hunt. I get the sense that more and more journalists, not just on Channel 4, have had enough of being lied to and are prepared to call it out.
Sophy Ridge and Krishnan Guru-Murthy were both very angry with the bullshit last night
Just listened to Hunt on Today. He claims we are paying down the ‘covid debt.’
In Richard’s book ‘Money for nothing nd my Tweets for Free,’ Chapter 2, he shows the covid deficit was directly funded by the B of E, unlike the earlier QE.
I wonder if he is paying down specifically covid debt? Or using that as a cover?
If he wasn’t a supply side supporter, he might open his mind and there might be more money for the things Richard listed in another post -like social housing, RAAC in schools, green transition etc.
Agree that more journalists are wiling to challenge.
I voted ‘a disaster for the UK’ but really I need two votes, it is also ‘stupid game playing’.
Actually, make that 3 votes, also ‘a total disaster’
Absolutely agreed Sue. I didn’t vote as there wasn’t an “all of the above apply” option except for “a great success”.
Sorry…
Sorry, that should read ‘total failure’ of course.
Survey lacks a “neutral” option, although perhaps that is the “stupid game playing” choice?
Personally I thought it was a non-event
A typical Tory budget. Lipstick on a pig springs to mind.
Surely porcine adornment is the Foreign Office’s province?
I’d love to know why and for whom those 7 voters thought the autumn statement was a “great success”?
I am trying to understand Hunt’s penalties for those who do not work. This was given sharp emphasis by Laura Trott MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who warned that “There is a ‘duty on citizens’ to work if they are able to, a government minister has said. Chief secretary to the Treasury, Laura Trott, told Sky News that the Conservatives believe ‘if you can work, as a principle, you should work”‘- saying the tenet is ‘the thrust of all our policies’.” (Sky News).
A ‘duty to work’ in an allegedly libertarian country, indeed from the heart of the Conservative Party, that claims to be the cutting-edge of libertarian politics. We are drifting carelessly, mindlessly, wantonly into the fringes of forced labour. It took Britain centuries to fight its way out of that monstrous predilection.
The mindless response is to focus solely on the unfairness of those who cheat the system. This is true, but understanding the problem requires more than a one-liner used on social media to accuse ‘benefit cheats’, dreamed up in some cheap Daily Mail or Express headline.
First, what is the scale of the problem? We do no know definitively, but a lot more Government resource is spent on Work and Pensions bureaucracy (ineffectively) on this, than HMRC is given to pursue far, far larger amounts of money lost to tax evasion, ot tightening up the ease with which wholesale tax avoidance can be undertaken through weak regulation or legislation.
The population of the UK is 67m. First, the number of people officially unemployed for over one year is around 300,000 (0.004%); this is a very small number, both statistically and historically. More critical is the sharp increase in recent years in those affected by disability and sickness: “Since the pandemic the number of people inactive in the UK due to long-term sickness or disability has risen by almost half a million to a record high of 2.6 million, with mental health, musculoskeletal conditions and heart disease being some of the main causes” (Government News Story issued by Treasury, DWP and Dept. for Health at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-support-launched-for-over-a-million-people).
This is the problem the Government has decided to tackle by issuing threats and a form of political intimidation; the withdrawal of the support of people’s lives. In order to tackle this in the case of a sudden rise to 2.6m people two questions need to be asked, and should be asked long before any action is taken. First, why has such a large increase happened following a major pandemic (that in principle is not yet fully understood, nor even definitively over)? What resources are required or available and implemented to investigate the problem? What extra resources does the NHS have to tackle this problem; as all those who are not workshy in the pool of 2.6m (probably almost all), will probably require some health remedy, in order to be available for work.
Second, what skilled workforce is available to government in this new, emerging post-pandemic health crisis with the expertise adequately to discriminate the workshy from the legitimately disabled.?Think of how this is to be executed, and by whom; not from the lurid perspective of tabloid wirh a presumption of guilt, but from the perspective of a genuinely disabled person with a new post-pandemic health problem who is now being examined or interrogated as a potential cheat? By his or her Government.
Third, suppose you have found an unchallengeable workshy cheat (at considerable cost – unless the pre-judgement is already made that they are mostly workshy cheats, and this is being operated crudely, and wholesale rough justice will do). What does the workshy do? Work? What kind of job? Who will want them? Only those who have never been in business actually wants to spend expensive time managing people who really do not want to be there. Generally they are more trouble than they are worth; they cost money, and contribute only problems. Furthermore, most smaller businesses do not have the resources to cope with recalcitrant labour, or see themselves as part of the social care system.
Fourth, if they do not work; what do they do? Lose their home? Add to the homeless problem? Rely on foodbanks? Turn to crime, become a problem for the police? Fall into ill health under the pressure, and become a burden o the NHS? Almost certainly this will end with the “workshy” being a bigger social problem and larger cost burden on the state than otherwise.
I doubt if this is even intended well; because it is not intended to solve a problem, but to use dog whistle politics to the right wing extreme, and the right wing media that has taken full and final possession of the Conservative Party.
John S Warren says:
“What does the workshy do? Work? What kind of job? Who will want them? Only those who have never been in business actually wants to spend expensive time managing people who really do not want to be there. Generally they are more trouble than they are worth; they cost money, and contribute only problems. Furthermore, most smaller businesses do not have the resources to cope with recalcitrant labour, or see themselves as part of the social care system.”
This is exactly the point.
There are many people who are capable of doing “some” work, but for health or other reasons are not able to turn up every single day.
If they have skills, many such people become self employed, working when they can, taking time off when they need it.
Employers really will not want to take on people who are unreliable, for whatever reason.
To follow up on Shelagh’s point, I know someone in exactly this position. He is skilled in building work and a decent musician who busks and gets word-of -mouth referrals for his building work. BUT, he dropped out of society as a teenager, lives in a caravan at the roadside, or on a friendly farmer’s field, and works as and when he can. He’ll manage 5 or 6 hours on a good day, 2 or 3 on a poor day and none at all on a bad day. He has both mental and physical issues, but is great if you can cope with that as an employer. Few can, hence he relies on casual work paid by the hour. When last I spoke with him some years ago he was thinking of foregoing his entitlement to benefits because the system was so stressful that it rendered him even more incapable than he already was.
“The Disability Employment Gap is still too wide, with around half of disabled people in work, compared to over 80% of non-disabled people. But the autism employment gap is even wider, with just 22% autistic people reported in paid work. We are really worried that out of all disabled people, autistic people seem to have the worst employment rate. While not all autistic people can work, we know most want to. The Government must improve the support and understanding autistic people get to find and keep work. ”
Government statistics. What chance do autistic people have?
That’s okay, though, isn’t it, as even adults usually live with/off their parents, 75% at the last count.
‘Laura Trott, the thinking person’s Helen Whately’. John Crace nails it yet again!
Cruel, I thought
But I smiled
Long term sickness benefit of 2.6 million people seems high, that’s a city the size of Manchester?
It is a Government issued statistic, issued and approved by three different Government ministires, and the Chancellor. What can I say? What do you think it is; what is your source, where is the evidence? If you are doing more than expressing surprise or groping in the dark, it is a fair question.
If that just seems a lot of people; it is. These are the problems an overwhelmed NHS and inadequately resourced care service are supposed to cope with; without the funding necessary to do the job properly, and provide a decent standard of life to the sick and disabled.
We have an unavoidable demographics problem in Britain both politicians and electorate refuse to face. The old vote more for the Conservatives; and then find the services for the frail and elderly are totally inadequate, when finally they need help. The human resources simply aren’t there. The mathematics of birth rates are against them. They didn’t have enough children, and the ones they had do not wish to ‘do’ care in sufficient numbers. Only immigration will fix the trend. In Scotland the demographics issue is so bad, the problem is existential. The elderly just refuse to understand.
“It’ll see me oot”, the mantra of the self interest of the old that brought us here, isn’t seeing them out any longer.
Brexit was a catastrophe, on every level. Living in Britain today is like living in a madhouse.
Agreed
How many people are still off sick with long covid? They will be included in these figures.
It’s often said that people over fifty who never went back to work after covid did it as a lifestyle choice. If you have long covid, it’s not a lifestyle choice, when you can only do housework for 15 minutes without needing time to recover. Those people can’t go into an office or drive a lorry or a bus.
I am fully recovered now, but for 8 months there was no way I could have worked a conventional working day, and did not, because of long-Covid
And here is what the Government intend to do. It is a huge step from the bland, bureaucratic language, to the eye-ball to eye-ball execution of the consequences; and this policy is a consequence free zone:
“Introducing a claimant review point – Universal Credit claimants who are still unemployed after the 12-month Restart programme will take part in a claimant review point: a new process whereby a work coach will decide what further work search conditions or employment pathways would best support a claimant into work. If a claimant refuses to accept these new conditions without good reason, their Universal Credit claim will be closed.
Rolling out mandatory work placement trials – through the claimant review point, claimants who have not yet moved into work by the end of Restart will be required to accept a job or to undertake time-limited work experience or other intensive activity to improve their employability prospects. Failure to do so at this stage will lead to a claimant’s Universal Credit claim being closed.
Stricter sanctions for people who should be looking for work but aren’t – including targeting disengaged claimants by closing the claims of individuals on an open-ended sanction for over six months and solely eligible for the Universal Credit standard allowance, ending their access to additional benefits such as free prescriptions and legal aid; rooting out fraud and error using the government’s Targeted Case Review to review the Universal Credit claims of disengaged claimants on an open-ended sanction for over eight weeks, ensuring they receive the right entitlement; digital tools to track claimants’ attendance at job fairs and interviews.” (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-support-launched-for-over-a-million-people)
A record high waiting list of 7.77 million, consisting of approximately 6.5 million individual patients waiting for treatment, nearly 3.29 million of these patients waiting over 18 weeks; around 391,000 of these patients waiting over a year for treatment.
https://leftfootforward.org/2023/11/what-the-autumn-statement-should-deliver-and-what-jeremy-hunt-will-do-instead/
Haven’t seen what Prem thinks now, but I can imagine.
https://leftfootforward.org/2023/11/group-of-uk-millionaires-project-tax-our-wealth-on-to-treasury-and-bank-of-england/
The patriotic millionaires didn’t get their way, either. Tories probably think they are idiots.
I have a technical question.
Everyone is delighted about business being able to offset investment against profit when it is made… but is it a big deal? Is not not just a question of timing?
As I understand it, under the old system I could buy some kit for (say) £100 and it would be depreciated over (say) 5 years reducing my profit by £20 a year for 5 years saving £5 a year (for 5 years ) in Corporation tax… or £25.
The new/current system means £25 of this year’s tax bill.
Now, timing and cash flow is important…. but that important?
Or – and this might well be the case – I am getting this completely wrong.
It’s not a big deal
And for accounting, deferred tax means it has no effect at all – the accounting benefit is deferred to match the depreciation charge still.
It’s as if no one in the Treasury undertsands corporate finance….
I am shocked, truly shocked….
Talk to serious business people and they’ll usually tell you that investment decisions are not primarily driven by tax. Very much a secondary factor after thinking about markets, distribution, employee and skills availability, suppliers etc.
I totally agree
It comes in way down the list – four or five, at least
These are capital allowance that do not depend on accounting depreciation. Depreciation is not deductible for tax proposes.
If a company borrows to buy some plant or machinery that qualifies for the 100% allowance (plenty of investments only qualify for 50%, or nothing at all) they they get to deduct the whole cost against 25% corporation tax in year one *and* claim deductions for the finance costs. So there is a sort of tax subsidy for borrowing to invest here.
To be fair, the annual investment allowance allows almost any business to do that for up to £1m of capital expenditure.
Yes, they are accelerating the capital allowances they would otherwise have claimed in later years. So it costs around £11 billion up front in loss of revenue but only £3 billion a year in the long run.
A proportion is recaptured on the sale price when the assets are sold.
Andrew
Sorry, but I was talking accounting
Of course the tax relief is in year one
But the accounting fur that tax relief is sired by deferred tax to match the depreciation charge
So no accounting benefit for that 100% relief can be taken in the accounts of any significant sized company
In business valuation that is taken into account – or should be by anyone worrying about their professional indemnity insurance
Richard
The ones who obsess about it are the inveterate tax dodgers. And City advisors – who tend to know little about real business.
The Hunt budget is truly awful in the ways that have been highlighted by you and many other commentators. Not a surprise from an economic illiterate who put the NHS into a nosedive which has resulted in it flying increasingly quickly towards the ground. Listening to Hunt followed by Reeves earlier was deeply depressing. Labour continue to be frightened of their own shadow.
A woman on QT last night said that she’d rather the NI cut went on the NHS. Many in the audience agreed with her. So why is the labour party not saying that.
I wish I knew