Keir Starmer

[meltonblue]

Honestly I don’t know. I’d rather the pension credit was taken up, AND everyone got WFA.

I don’t believe for 1 nano-second that removing the WFA was essential to plug some made up black hole, “to stabilize the economy”. What tosh. How does a £1.3bn saving stop the economy from “becoming unstable” if we’re £22bn short? And why couldn’t Thieves take the £1.3bn from Ed Silliband’s £11bn loony overseas green initiatives fund? It’s all made up bollocks mate.

And now we’re hearing that in fact Reeves may have a £39bn surplus after all. And the times asked the treasury where they got the £22bn from and they refused, saying they couldn’t because they were not sure if the figures!

Rear Starmer and co are playing us for mugs in the hope they can lay on the public some massive tax hikes and say, “sorry but we had no choice, it’s not our fault, it’s those naughty Tories and the mess they left behind”. If this was not a political thread, everyone in unison would be saying what a load of bollocks, we’re being played here. Because we are.

To be fair, the 22bn black hole is completely different to the 39 billion surplus. 22 billion is the difference this year between budget and projected spending, the 39 billion is the headroom forecast in five years time if they loosen the fiscal rules.

Worth reading the economist article Hunt got that figure from rather than how it’s subsequently been interpreted.

 

[bluenova]

Honestly I don’t know. I’d rather the pension credit was taken up, AND everyone got WFA.

I don’t believe for 1 nano-second that removing the WFA was essential to plug some made up black hole, “to stabilize the economy”. What tosh. How does a £1.3bn saving stop the economy from “becoming unstable” if we’re £22bn short? And why couldn’t Thieves take the £1.3bn from Ed Silliband’s £11bn loony overseas green initiatives fund? It’s all made up bollocks mate.

And now we’re hearing that in fact Reeves may have a £39bn surplus after all. And the times asked the treasury where they got the £22bn from and they refused, saying they couldn’t because they were not sure if the figures!

Rear Starmer and co are playing us for mugs in the hope they can lay on the public some massive tax hikes and say, “sorry but we had no choice, it’s not our fault, it’s those naughty Tories and the mess they left behind”. If this was not a political thread, everyone in unison would be saying what a load of bollocks, we’re being played here. Because we are.

If you're posting on a politics thread, you're probably not who the "politics" of the black hole is aimed at. After the Tories milked the 2008 global crash for years, and used it as an excuse for austerity, Labour clearly wanted to throw a little back, in the hope that it would still damage the Tories for the next election.

With the WFA, I suspect they wanted to look tough, and expected to get some "tough on benefits" bonus from it. Given that it's a universal benefit, that the energy cap was going to be less than last year, that pensioners were about to get a pretty high increase with the triple lock, and that means-testing meant that the poorest still had protection, it probably looked like the benefit 'cut' that was easiest to defend.

I also suspect that one reason they didn't go for a quick budget, is that they're wanted a few months of the "Tories are to blame narrative" (and let's face it, the Tories have left behind a mess), before announcing that they had to adjust the borrowing rules, and introduce some wealth taxes - both of which might seem 'tough', but would probably be welcomed if it meant the state investing again.

I think they've discovered that it was pretty naive to announce the WFA cut into a vacuum, where it's one of the only policy changes that is immediately noticeable.

 

[bluenova]

To be fair, the 22bn black hole is completely different to the 39 billion surplus. 22 billion is the difference this year between budget and projected spending, the 39 billion is the headroom forecast in five years time if they loosen the fiscal rules.

Worth reading the economist article Hunt got that figure from rather than how it’s subsequently been interpreted.

It's ironic that Hunt also claims the backlash to the WFA means testing, will make it harder for Labour to reform or reduce the welfare bill.