The Labour Government

Brewster's millions said:
You clearly haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, and neither seemingly does Starmer. Ignorance is I’m afraid no excuse for the amount of nonsense and bluster you post. Starmer should know better, at least.

The OBR frequently changes its productivity assumptions, and the latest revision is not especially large relative to the history of these.

To quote paragraph 1.5 of the OBR document explaining the recent change in productivity assumptions;

‘We have made several previous downward revisions to our trend productivity forecast in response to shocks and the growing period of weak productivity growth since 2008. The 0.3 percentage point revision we have made to medium-term productivity growth is significant, but not as large as the 0.5 percentage point revision we made in November 2017. Comparing the forecast change in five-year cumulative trend productivity growth, there are five other EFOs where we have made downward revisions of a similar or larger magnitude.’

Again, you are misinformed, and so is Starmer. Given that Starmer was only speaking today in an attempt to save Reeves after she’s been found to have lied again, one would have expected him to be in full knowledge of the facts surrounding the OBR’s forecast revisions, what these entailed and when the Chancellor was informed of these changes.

But sadly, he isn’t. I think this neatly illustrates the amateurish nature of this government and how they believe they’re still able to mislead the public. Thankfully, not all of us are as gullible as yourself.
Click to expand...
So Starmer and his government are ignorant, misinformed, don't know what they are talking about and are misleading everybody except you. Quoting a extract from the pathetic snow job OBR response in the face of widespread criticism of its intervention as evidence of your low gullibility quotient is in fact only incontrovertible evidence of your low intelligence quotient.
 
Brewster's millions said:
It’s what they do when they know they’re wrong.

I was a misogynist the other day apparently, and it seems you’re a racist today. Par for the course unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Yep, anyone that disagrees with them on immigration a racist, anyone that doesn't believe a person can change their sex is a transphobe. The pattern is the same.
 
Chris Mason on Radio 4 was trying to make sense of it - journalists (usual suspects) seem miffed about being misled but it didn't sound like he could pin down a lie. And if I heard right the Treasury had said there was a surplus.

I think people may have been hearing what they wanted to hear.

"All the news that's fit to print" - or all the news fitted to print?
 
Vic said:
Chris Mason on Radio 4 was trying to make sense of it - journalists (usual suspects) seem miffed about being misled but it didn't sound like he could pin down a lie. And if I heard right the Treasury had said there was a surplus.

I think people may have been hearing what they wanted to hear.

"All the news that's fit to print" - or all the news fitted to print?
Click to expand...
Starmer acknowledged that at one stage they were preparing to break their manifesto tax pledges in light of deteriorating economic circumstances but thankfully were able to avoid that despite the poor projections..
 
Fuck me sideways, i've only just realised that the payments following the lifting of the 2 child cap is £3.5k a year per child. I thought this was the family allowance if £17.00 or whatever a week.
 
johnny crossan said:
So Starmer and his government are ignorant, misinformed, don't know what they are talking about and are misleading everybody except you. Quoting an extract from the pathetic snow job OBR response in the face of widespread criticism of its intervention as evidence of your low gullibility quotient is in fact only incontrovertible evidence of your low intelligence quotient.
Click to expand...
Another meaningless word salad. Is this really the best you can come up with?

Starmer is not correct to say that the OBR’s productivity downgrade was unusual, exceptional or irregular in its timing, because the OBR revisits its supply side assumptions every year. It’s an annual exercise, not an ‘intervention’ as you suggest. And certainly not an act of sabotage, as you have continually (and ridiculously) alleged.

I’ve provided proof of that, and indeed how this latest downgrade is far from exceptional in terms of its size. Despite this, you still can’t accept that you’re wrong and that your argument is, frankly, nonsense.

And at no point have I claimed that I’m the only person not being misled by this government. That’s your own peroration. Perhaps a dictionary, or indeed a visit to the OBR website, might be of benefit to you.
 
abu13 said:
Fuck me sideways, i've only just realised that the payments following the lifting of the 2 child cap is £3.5k a year per child. I thought this was the family allowance if £17.00 or whatever a week.
Click to expand...
I get 17.25 x 52 = 897. How do you get 3.5k? 4 children would get you around £4000 per annum as 26.05 for first child.
 
abu13 said:
Fuck me sideways, i've only just realised that the payments following the lifting of the 2 child cap is £3.5k a year per child. I thought this was the family allowance if £17.00 or whatever a week.
Click to expand...

I read similar but it's not strictly true. The rate is £26.05 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for any younger children from April 2026. The much higher rate is for people on universal credit etcetera. I think...lol.
 
Kompany Car said:
Within reason, passing some of you wealth onto your children is the most human thing you can do as a parent, wanting them to be secure. The question is how much is reasonable.

Some look at the likes of Bill Gates and laud him as being altruistic in "only" leaving his kids $20m each and gifting the rest away. Yet $20m buys a life that most of us couldn't ever imagine.

Whilst ever we allow the truly wealthy to pass on large chunks of their estates, complaining about the bloke wanting to ensure the best for their kids by passing on a few tens of thousand seems crazy. We seem to want to level everyone down, apart from those who have, what it seems, reached escape velocity in terms of their wealth to the extent that even paying tax/care fees etc they still remain incredibly wealthy and thats before the complex tax avoidance starts.
Click to expand...
To me, that sounds hypocritical. If you have absolutely nothing to pass on to your children or grandchildren then someone leaving £300,000 plus to their offspring is a life changing sum. Basically, what we are saying (I'm going to do the exact same thing) is that it is ok for me to pass on £300,000 plus but anyone richer than me is a greedy bastard and needs their arses taxed. i.e my morals cost me fuck all!
 
Brewster's millions said:
Another meaningless word salad. Is this really the best you can come up with?

Starmer is not correct to say that the OBR’s productivity downgrade was unusual, exceptional or irregular in its timing, because the OBR revisits its supply side assumptions every year. It’s an annual exercise, not an ‘intervention’ as you suggest. And certainly not an act of sabotage, as you have continually (and ridiculously) alleged.

I’ve provided proof of that, and indeed how this latest downgrade is far from exceptional in terms of its size. Despite this, you still can’t accept that you’re wrong and that your argument is, frankly, nonsense.

And at no point have I claimed that I’m the only person not being misled by this government. That’s your own peroration. Perhaps a dictionary, or indeed a visit to the OBR website, might be of benefit to you.
Click to expand...
If you are going to use words you don't understand I suppose it's inevitable they'll be incorrectly applied. There was no mention of you being misled in my peroration. You have provided proof of nothing at all btw except your own gullibility. Starmer is entirely correct to question the motives behind the OBR timing of its PR publication at such a sensitive event for the national economy. It was intended to damage the chancellor's credibility and provided the Tories with propaganda to feed and mislead their supporters like yourself.
 
Palerider said:
To me, that sounds hypocritical. If you have absolutely nothing to pass on to your children or grandchildren then someone leaving £300,000 plus to their offspring is a life changing sum. Basically, what we are saying (I'm going to do the exact same thing) is that it is ok for me to pass on £300,000 plus but anyone richer than me is a greedy bastard and needs their arses taxed. i.e my morals cost me fuck all!
Click to expand...
As an aside to this.
If you bypass leaving your house etc to your immediate offspring and invest long term for your future unborn relatives then you could become as wealthy as Musk.

"An investment of $1,000 in the S&P 500 in 1925 would be worth approximately $23.5 million today, assuming all dividends were reinvested",

So 300,000 would be worth around 6,900,000,000

Just saying.
 
johnny crossan said:
Starmer asks why was the OBR Productivity Review done this year and not last - a very good question indeed and his answer 'it's the nature of the beast' tells you what you need to know. The OBR's timing was clearly an attack.
Click to expand...
When exactly last year did he want it done ? He's been PM since July 2024, after all. He could have asked for their Review at any time since then and not wait to be railroaded by them just before the Budget, if you think they are so anti-Labour.
 
stan bowles said:
When exactly last year did he want it done ? He's been PM since July 2024, after all. He could have asked for their Review at any time since then and not wait to be railroaded by them just before the Budget, if you think they are so anti-Labour.
Click to expand...
Starmer argues with some justification it should have been done at the end of the Tories term in office - bit of AI follows

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he was "bemused" by the timing of the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) productivity update, suggesting it should have been published earlier, specifically at the end of the last Conservative government.

Starmer's key points regarding the timing are:
  • Before the current government started: He argues that conducting the review at the end of the previous administration would have provided a clear understanding of the economic situation the new government was inheriting.
  • Picking up the tab: By having the productivity forecast downgraded (which reduced the estimated fiscal headroom) 15 or 16 months into his government's term, Starmer claimed his administration was forced to "pick up the tab" for the previous government's failures.
  • Impact on the Budget: The OBR's decision to lower its medium-term productivity growth forecast by 0.3 percentage points meant the government had £16 billion less in projected tax receipts than it would have otherwise expected, a factor Starmer cited as a difficult "starting point" for the recent Budget and a reason for the resulting tax rises.
Starmer stressed that he is supportive of the OBR as an institution, which he considers "vital for stability," but criticised the timing of that specific report, calling the late release of the full budget analysis a "serious error" and a "massive discourtesy to parliament".
 
johnny crossan said:
If you are going to use words you don't understand I suppose it's inevitable they'll be incorrectly applied. There was no mention of you being misled in my peroration. You have provided proof of nothing at all btw except your own gullibility. Starmer is entirely correct to question the motives behind the OBR timing of its PR publication at such a sensitive event for the national economy. It was intended to damage the chancellor's credibility and provided the Tories with propaganda to feed and mislead their supporters like yourself.
Click to expand...
The facts are very clear, as is your stupidity.

Have a good one.
 
paulchapo said:
I read similar but it's not strictly true. The rate is £26.05 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for any younger children from April 2026. The much higher rate is for people on universal credit etcetera. I think...lol.
Click to expand...
This is where the terms used are key:

You get Child Benefit if you’re responsible for bringing up a child who is:

Only one person can get Child Benefit for a child.

There’s no limit to how many children you can claim for.

Eldest Child gets £26.05 per week.
Unlimited Addtional children get £17.25 per week.

This can be paid in full for 2 earners on £60k each so a household with an income of £120k is on "benefits".

In reality it is tapered if one earner is on £60,001 and runs out at £80000

The cap that has been lifted is for those on Universal Credit.

At present the rates are:

You’ll only get an extra amount for your first and second child. You will not get an extra amount for any more children unless:
  • your children were born before 6 April 2017
  • you were already claiming for 3 or more children before 6 April 2017
  • other exceptions apply

For your first child (born before 6 April 2017)£339
For your first child (born on or after 6 April 2017)£292.81
For your second child and any other eligible children£292.81 per child










 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top