Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I like the tax on gambling. I guess some losers' money finding its way to organised crime is not great but the industry seems awash in money advertising absolutely everywhere, which is kind of gross.

Tax on 2m+ properties at least has symbolic value so good.

Not thrilled about the 3p charge on EV miles driven, that's going to almost triple our current 1.6p per mile cost, but we are going to survive.

Just to come back on the budget I think it's very much a curate's egg and mainly seems aimed at party management. I am struck at how weak this Chancellor is and how weak generally the government is too which is extraordinary given the size of their majority.

The good stuff to me seems to be the EV tax. Fuel duty is an important source of revenue but we're also trying to reduce the number of people paying it because we're getting people to move to EVs. So we need some long-term replacement and this seems sensible. Also think moving the SEND budget from local authorities to Depatment for Education will be good for local government and also hopefully get some attention on a slightly out of control budget.

On the downside there's lots of new complicated stuff going on here that I think will be a nightmare (and expensive) to police. It's also a really bad budget for savers. So cash ISA allowances cut, tax benefits for pension contributions cut. Also some measures to remove tax allowances for capital investment in the private sector are just straight-forwardly anti growth.

The "mansion tax" is really complicated and from every tax expert I've seen basically the opposite of how tax should be designed. Council tax desperately needs reform but, as is often the case, this government has decided to swerve significant substantive reform in favour of a complicated thing that won't raise much money, won't make much difference but allows them to say they've done something. Given that toxic combination, I'm sure no-one will be surprised to discover that it was originally a Lib Dem policy. So the only redeeming feature is that the Lib Dems have come out against it very strongly (In fairness their heartlands overlap more or less totally with expensive houses.)

I also think it's yet another budget with a generational kicker. So allowances for ISAs are cut for working people - not for pensioners. Income tax thresholds are frozen so won't increase with inflation (this means there are now nurses in the higher tax band which is not right), plus student loan repayment thresolds aren't being adjusted for inflation so they will continue to kick in early. Add in the pensions changes and it's really not clear that there's anything in this budget for young people or workers. On the other hand pensions are increasing by 4.8% because of the triple lock, which the chancellor is keeping. Pensioners are excluded from the ISA changes and the Chancellor has since said people on state pensions will not pay income tax on that even if the inflation/wage-rated growth of pensions collides with the non-inflation tracking tax thresholds. So it's another budget - in a row of 15 budgets where the young and workers are kind of screwed while the elderly are protected.

I also think (which is why I think the whole "fiscal rule"/headroom framing of policy is bullshit) that it's not really going to happen Most of new tax measures (not least because they're quite complex so will require design and implementation work) won't take effect until 2028. So spending will rise in the short term, while there will be long term revenue increases that will take force in *checks notes* an election year. That strikes me as basically quite unlikely:


As has been pointed out by many people there is almost nothing or growth or productivity in the budget - and the OBR assessment basically says it has no impact on either of those measures. Which feels sub-optimal from a government "laser-focused on growth" and where that is the huge limiting factor to their plans.

Also I think the politics and handling of this budget in the run-up was bad. What's really weird is that the OBR forecasting data has come out since and it wasn't even necessry - basically they told Reeves she had "headroom" early-ish in the process. It seems all very strange.

[Sheilbh]

Apologies for the X link - but Sultana really is outflanking Corbyn from the left (slightly funny seeing Jones trying to give her many well sign-posted off-ramps that she just ignores)
https://x.com/owenjonesjourno/status/1995556619866784166?s=20

I thought this was quite a fun very quick summary of the conference as I think there are still people who have hope from this (including in this video) and they seem very nice and maybe it will work out. But to me it feels like a huge disappointing missed opportunity from 800k people signing up in interest over the summer - which I think is a bit sad (especially because I don't like the Greens )

What is also interesting and I think healthy though is that you had serious reporting of it - from the left media like Novara, but also from the New Statesman. I think that's a good thing and when you've got two parties to the left of Labour having surges at different stages, the press (and academia) need people who can cover and understand the radical left just as much as the radical right.

[Tamas]

So are we looking at a new political landscape where what used to be the Tories are now Labour, what used to be Labour are the Greens and (what used to be UKIP is Reform)?

[Sheilbh]

So are we looking at a new political landscape where what used to be the Tories are now Labour, what used to be Labour are the Greens and (what used to be UKIP is Reform)?

No I think this is vibes - and Labour's abyssmal lack of an actual strategy.

In actual terms Labour's raised £66 billion of taxes (largely on employers) which is largely being spent on public services and welfare. They've introduced VAT on private schools, got rid of non-doms and now the mansion tax. Changed the fiscal rules to allow £100 billion of extra capital spending plus re-writing the Treasury Green Book to privilege non-London investment. Started nationalising the railways as well as establishing a state energy company and national wealth fund investing in new renewable projects (while ending new North Sea gas extraction licenses). Plus they've recognised Palestine and there's an arms embargo on Israel (except for certain spare parts contracts).

But for internal factional reasons the Labour leadership has decided to always "punch a hippy" by fighting the Labour left, which means they're just alienated. But also there's no overall strategy or message tying it all together. It's definitely left wing, not what the Tories would be doing but it just all comes across as accidental and incoherent.

I would add, because of course I would, that a lot of those changes - particularly on investment and nationalisation - depend on planning reform and state capacity or they will not have an impact that people notices. That capital spending and investment will not matter if it is tied up in consultations and planning appeals or being pissed away on lawyers' fees. But this government is absolutely addicted to prioritising process over outcome.

[Tamas]

At the start of the year when we were looking to buy a car I was looking into motability simply because it was all over the place, seemed like it's own mini industry. Obviously I didn't for a second thought to abuse it but it was very obvious that a whole lot of people must if it was as popular as it seemed.

The government is rightfully cutting back on the type of cars you can babe the government lease for you under it, but count on Frances "a dystopian extreme version of it one day might be used against disabled people so let's fight tooth and nail against helping suffering terminal people die" Ryan to defend it and cry havoc at the prospect of "disabled" people not being able to claim luxury brands:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/08/disabled-people-luxury-cars-rightwing-lie-labour-motability

[Richard Hakluyt]

Disabled people can get the personal independence payment (PIP) which has a mobility component, if they qualify for the higher rate then they are eligible to take part in the motability scheme Essentially you exchange your higher rate PIP payment for the motability vehicle. There is no extra cost to the taxpayer as the PIP covers the cost of the car lease. If they want to then the disabled person can pay extra to get a more hi-spec model, again there is no additional cost to the taxpayer.

I think there are two lines of potential criticism of the motability scheme. Firstly, how many people are allowed to get higher rate PIP mobility component when they really shouldn't be. Secondly, is the higher rate PIP mobility component too high?

The thing about the fancy cars though? Pure, unadulterated bullshit; and, instead of making that point, the government has caved...as usual.

[Sheilbh]

So I think Motability is actually pretty good. Living with a disability is expensive. We are not a kind, caring or generous society for people with disabilities. So my inclination is that anything that is helping disabled is worth fighting for (although I am worried at the growth in long-term disability claimants and costs as well as SEND costs - not least because I thought a lot of it was long covid, but we seem to be the only country where this is happening) - Frances Ryan is a commentator I really like and often agree with.

There are some costs to the taxpayer in that I don't think there's VAT or some other taxes on the vehicles. It's also basically a state backed company in a lot of ways which will be an implicity subsidy. I think the tax breaks are about £1 billion. Not nothing, but not vast - however that has grown pretty rapidly in recent years as the numbers of people using the service have increased.

Motability Operations Group plc (so the corporate bit that delivers the services) has a history over the last few years of earning significant "unplanned profits". Basically their profits have been double what they anticipated and planned for over the last decade or so. I don't think they give money to shareholders in the normal way a company would, but worth noting that the shareholders of MOG plc are Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and Natwest. So there is an argument that it is a way of financialising welfare - with huge reserves, large "unplanned profits" and massive executive pay (especially for a company with state backed revenue and no competition).

Having said all that I don't necessarily mind saying they need to buy UK manufactured vehicles. I broadly think we should have a lot more of that in government contracting/procurement.

I sort of feel like this is one of those things that the Economist flagged of the UK state having relatively generous policies available but they're not straight forward to get an implicit assumption by the state is that most people won't claim what they're entiteld to. Increasingly the internet has democratised knowledge of how to actully get what you're entitled to - what forms to fill in, what evidence to provide etc (something similar in the asylum system) which basically means the state's bluff is being called and it doesn't like it/can't afford it.

[Tamas]

Ok so then probably the high PIP payment rules are too loose. I am from Eastern Europe I know a widespread scam when I see one. There is no way we are such an unhealthy society.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think the principal problem is that the rules were generated by a more robust generation than the ones living now. I have known many people, older than me (so mostly dead now), with debilitating conditions of one sort or another (mainly related to a lifetime wroking in coal mines) who would not have dreamed of categorising themselves as disabled. I also had several teachers who were quite mad/peculiar having served the full 6 years or more in the forces during WW2.

None of these people were "disabled" by their own lights. Whereas, nowadays, a spot of ADHD or autism and people want to claim extraordinary privileges. The problem with that is there are so few normal people; I met one once, back in the 80s, no physical or mental problems or peculiarities....she was so relaxing to hang out with 

...and I do know that I'm a grumpy old man now 

[garbon]

I think the principal problem is that the rules were generated by a more robust generation than the ones living now. I have known many people, older than me (so mostly dead now), with debilitating conditions of one sort or another (mainly related to a lifetime wroking in coal mines) who would not have dreamed of categorising themselves as disabled. I also had several teachers who were quite mad/peculiar having served the full 6 years or more in the forces during WW2.

None of these people were "disabled" by their own lights. Whereas, nowadays, a spot of ADHD or autism and people want to claim extraordinary privileges. The problem with that is there are so few normal people; I met one once, back in the 80s, no physical or mental problems or peculiarities....she was so relaxing to hang out with 

...and I do know that I'm a grumpy old man now 

Why should a person not claim what they are entitled to?