Labour planning to freeze tax thresholds longer

lol. Ace comment

The IFS said they had the figures pre-election (or at least enough of them to know the extent of the black hole). And pointed out that Labour's maths was wrong at the time (they'd spent money more than once).

I think they said it was bigger than they thought it was before they settled the strikes? It was their first day in parliament they mentioned the black hole.
Strikes were settled later, because they had no choice. This will have been costed by them but was based on numbers not provided to them.

I don't think that made it into the mix about the benefits of voting Labour. Apparently they were to usher in a new wave of honest policies, grown up politics, without corruption - and they'd govern kindly and remember the vulnerable and take great care not to fuck them over.

There has been some rapid revisionism over the last few months. Apparently everyone knew they were lying, that having the begging bowl out for fancy things was still on the table, and that, despite age uk's warnings about the harms about to be unleashed by the low threshold for wfa, that they are all very relaxed about that because they all have rich, tatty parents who spent it all on shit anyway. Who knew?

Yes, but it's dishonest to say that the vast shortfall is bigger than you thought when a) you've added to it yourself and b) you knew you'd have to add to it pre-election. That's my point.

And I asked you a straightforward question. You aren't answering it.

I have no idea what I posted pre election but I voted fully expecting that tax rises in some form would happen and money would have to be raised somehow. I didn't expect the Labour Party to be be explicit pre election about how that would happen. Perhaps you need to look at the Reform Party's tax propositions and you might be able to answer my question. It appears that you expect transparency and explicit plans from the Labour Party but not from any other party.

You suggested the p/s pay rises increased the vast shortfall. I pointed out that there was always going to be a vast shortfall.

I’m glad you’re bowing out truly. But clearly I have an opinion you just didn’t like being asked what should be a straightforward question

Blame Labour for making a mess of the answer

Did you post on here pre GE you thought Labour were dishonest or just now?

Lying to this extent for votes will surely backfire

I didn’t look at Reform’s promises are they comparable to Labour?

Who's saying they wouldn't have offered anything?

ETA: all parties should have allowed for the pay rises pre-election and included them in their calculations (full costings). It appears none were honest about it.

What's pointless is trying to discuss this kind of thing with Labour's hardcore supporters who don't want to hear criticism.

Just pointing out once again that HMT thought it would have to spend £7bn for p\spay rises in the event the Conservatives were reelected. That £7bn wasn't budgeted either. Absolute nonsense to suggest that they wouldn't have offered anything.

x.com/harryyorke1/status/1818280623368519864?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

No, because I give answers. Eastern just tries to tie everyone up in knots while pretending not to have an opinion. It’s pointless.

I'm very relieved that, between the tax rises l, department cuts and benefit cuts, that this absolutely won't be an austerity budget though. Apparently it is identifying as something else.

Combined DH and I earn £160k. Work bloody hard but we're absolutely not in Labours definition of 'workers'. He was pressed on this during Question Time once and he confirmed it's people who rely on public services. So if you're able to save or dip into your pockets for private health etc then this Government couldn't give a flying fuck. That's the reality. They are very much keen to lower the bar.

Ha I missed the attempt at insult at the end, not going as you wish I see. But do feel free to always avoid, I’ll be ok

Funny how the OBR said they didn’t know then, don’t you think?

Yes. Tax rises if necessary. It's what I expected when I voted. However if they'd laid that out explicitly it would have affected their vote. Now do you think the Tories and Reform should have been transparent? Yes or no?

Sorry @NoWordForFluffy I thought you were suggesting they shouldn't have settled the strikes.

I also agree growth is central, they need to attract inward investment, as the years since brexit have been very costly for us, but of course that is another story.
I will wait and see what happens in the budget and what their fiscal plans are, hopefully it will all make sense then.

What do you mean by ‘tough decisions’?

Tax rises or no?

They said there would need to be tough decisions. It's the responsibility of the electorate to interpret that. Do you think the Tories should have been explicit about how they were going to address the situation that had developed over the previous 14 years? Should Reform have set out in detail how they intended to pay for the tax reforms in their manifesto?

.

There isn't one side or the other, its not a football match

There can be different points of view and to learn from others ideas and how things could be changed is important. Nothing is ever completely black or white.

I agree with means tested benefits and disagree with millionaires receiving £300 benefit just because they are over 66. I do think that means testing could be wider ranging to include more people, but understand a cut off has to come somewhere and the most vulnerable in society need help.

I agree freezing PA until 2028 and beyond is a bad thing but whilst the workers will suffer higher taxes if NMW is raised this may offset those taxes and benefits paid by govenment reducing the bill

It's not nonsense at all. The public sector pay rises need paying for, so increased the amount of money which the government needs to raise. That's a fact, not nonsense.

You appear to think in giving factual information, I've given an opinion. There was none, just the factual situation.