To think joke Chancellor Joke Budget joke Government

Which was a joke that other chancellors had made to their successors. Bear in mind that we'd just gone through a banking crash caused by greedy banks repackaging junk debt as triple A rated bonds. it drove our debt to GDP ratio to 60%. 13 years of tory rule drove it to 80% and then covid drove it to 100/%.

what benefit is she increasing other than maintaining the triple lock on pensions?

Wow how rude and aggressive torsten bell on sky!!

I like many many others have studied as an adult, improved my chances of earning more, stopped at a small family due to cost - only to now be worse off in my pocket than I was. It’s ok though because my £5.5k commuter train fair will be frozen. Hooray for trying so hard to better myself

So it hardly affects you and so you feel pretty good about it 🤣 Well wont that surprise absolutely no one.

Oh stop it.

You are either ignorant to how government borrowing is costed or you are just being ideological.

The global financial system has a massive impact on the cost of borrowing and it is going up for everyone, not just the UK and in terms of the markets reaction to economic performance - that is a long term view affected by 14 years of very little growth.

Yes, 30 year gilts, which are the ones all of the "High Borrowing Costs!" headlines are focussed on, are expensive, but that doesn't mean the government have to use that mechanism for borrowing. It's like shouting that consumer borrowing costs are at an all time high because Santander are offering a 10 year fixed mortgage rate of 10% - you would just look elsewhere for a shorter fix at a lower rate.

In 1997 public sector net debt (PSND) as a % of GDP was 37.2%, in 2007 (before the financial crash) it was 36.1%, in 2010 it was 70.1%. By 2019 (before covid) it had increased to 84.2% and by 2024 it was 95.0%.

As of October this year it was 94.5% - so Labour may very well have borrowed more but they are investing in public services which is actually stabilising PSND due to some growth.

Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) as a % of GDP was 4.8% in 2023-24. It increased slightly to 5.1% in 2024/25 but is predicted to come down year on year until 2029-30 when it is forecast to be 2.1%.

But the really important indicator is Public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) - the is the true cost of government debt against assets (think of it a bit like a Loan to Value amount on a mortgage).

Up until 2008 PSNFL was about 34.1% in 2010 it had increased to 58.6%. By 2019 it was 66.3% and by 2024 was 81.2%. It's forecast to go up over the next couple of years until 27/28 when it starts to come down again, and is forecast to be 82.7% by 2029-30.

So in summary - what all that means is that under the last Conservative government, debt increased (as did taxes) but that money did not go into improving public services therefore the it did not improve PSNFL - the gap between the two widened significantly in fact. So - where did the money go? (and you can't blame Covid, because the gap was increasing pre-covid)

Labour are borrowing more initially, but they are doing so to invest in public services. They are fixing the roof, which in turn increases the value of the house and brings down PSNFL.

To stick with the mortgage analogy - the Tories borrowed against the mortgage and spent the money by pissing it up the wall or on holidays for them and their mates (quite literally in some cases), while the house fell apart due to lack of investment and the house's occupants failed to increase their earning potential.

Labour are borrowing more initially, but they are doing so to fix the roof and make sure the house is functional while supporting the occupants with education and a financial boost to get them back out to work. Yes, it increases debt in the short term, but over the next five to seven years, the value of the house increases and earnings potential goes up which means that Loan to Value gap gets a whole lot smaller.

It's exactly what happened in the between 1997 and 2001 and its happening again - if you dig into the funding figures for education and the NHS you can see it.

I think RR has got a lot of things wrong in this budget (the freezing of the basic rate thresholds, pensions and ISA changes are mad), but it is no where as bad as it could have been and some of the things are spot on (like the increase in dividend tax - and I say that as a higher rate business owner whose main income is dividends).

However, even with the things I don't agree with, I think some of it is a tactic - look at the dates when it is coming in - most are in 2 or 3 years time. She is giving the markets confidence that she is increasing taxes to manage the deficit, which will reduce borrowing costs - by the time we get to 2028 and 2029, if the investments in services have had the impact they should have, growth will have increased and borrowing will have come down, which means she can probably reverse some of these decisions!

But unfortunately parents do generally have responsibility for making decisions about how many children to have. There are a great many people just above UC thresholds but on a lower income who can’t claim UC and pay taxes. Why should they effectively pay towards large families that others have chosen to have, but can’t afford?
Of course no child should be left in poverty because of choices their parents make. In your post, you say that you have a ‘large family’ and already struggle. I completely understand that life throws lemons and sometimes people find themselves in situations where they need help and support, through no fault of their own. That is absolutely the role of a caring society. But its irresponsible to have a large family whilst knowing you would struggle financially and need to rely on the state (and others taxes.)
You are right that older people are primary users of the NHS, but actually maternity care, care in childhood and education etc are also considerable costs to the state. As adults, most people are actually a burden to the state. Most people actually take out more than they gain; it’s not as simple as just having bigger families. It is also true that bigger families, especially those who are struggling, tend to need more input from the state generally, benefits aside.
You criticize others for being ‘spiteful’, but talk about busses and GPs being ‘rammed’ with elderly people.
It’s not ‘bitter’ to suggest that perhaps people should think about whether they can afford big families before they decide to have them. Both for the sake of society and the child.

Precisely.
I don't understand what people think the Tories/Greens/Reform would magically do differently.

It's a shame that SureStart isn't still around. That did so much for the poorest children but fell foul of Tory cuts.

This

@Fluffyholeysocks

Not underwhelming, utterly catastrophic.

Wine has been hit with a hike which will hit hospitality and small business will be hit by nmw rise.

@Newnametrt agree

I'm all about child poverty but I don't think for one moment this will help at all.
Not at all.

Oh well apparently 600 hundred thou children will be lifted out of poverty today !

Look forward to seeing it.

I can't see where the much needed economic growth is going to come from. I was hoping for some support to small businesses especially hospitality. Bit underwhelming really.

There’s absolutely nothing to guarantee the extra child benefit received by families is actually spent on children though is there?
The money could have been far better spent on targeted services for the very poorest children- social services, sure start, expansion of free school meals.

Why? You’ve worked 50 years so why would you need to do that?

Whilst building all over the green belt, which is the most effective mechanism for carbon capture... couldn't make this shit up

I’m glad you’ve realised but I agree with pp Labour are very predictable on this. Especially this lot.

Yeah, sure, if by "things you don't want to hear" means lazy tribal polemics.

Great budget, very pleased the 2 child benefit cap removed - a horrible attack on families by the Tories gone forever

@SeaAndStars
I agree with you - my children were very young when Labour got in in 1997 and we were really struggling before then - especially after the 16% mortgage interest rate in the early 90’s…..
Money was really tight despite both of us working but my goodness, I could feel things getting easier almost immediately. I particularly remember the free museums - amazingly cheap days out for us (with packed lunches obvs) and the NHS was great.
I’m now older and with more money (I pay a shit load of tax) but I’d never begrudge making life a bit easier for others because I grew up with free school meals and social housing.
The UK seems to have shifted to the right since the coalition government, austerity, Brexit etc and we’re all the worse for it.

You’re quite right. Children that do not have the foresight to make sure they are born as first or second children deserve to live in poverty.

What on god's earth did you think you were voting for if not this??!!

If you have 50 years national insurance records I don’t understand why you’d have to top up to get your full state pension, surely if 35 years is the target you’ve exceeded it ?

State pension is classed as a benefit by the government. However, you only get tbe full benefit if you've paid enough into the system or have credits for being a carer etc. Ive just paid the government about £5k to increase my and hubby's benefits ... though we have paid taxes for 50 years abd never claimed benefits.