Am I the only one that thinks that the budget is good?!

Significantly cutting legal immigration - e.g., removing the sticking plaster solution without having addressed the underlying problem.

That would put us on a similar trajectory to Japan.

I have significant concerns around the current government on this. It is madness, to me, that the Tories and - even moreso Reform - would go further.

But that's political short termism for you.

Hyperbole isn't helpful. What policies have Reform announced that would further decrease our birth rate?

I hadn’t really considered the SDP. I quite like the look of some of their policies, though it’s a hard no and suspicion on others.

I don’t like the risk aspect of Reform’s pension proposals - especially given they might be next in. I also think they’re a one-trick pony, like the Greens. Turkeys voting for Christmas because I believe they’ll bring in an insurance-based health system, and they’ll remove flexible working for starters. The racism aspect is best left for another thread…

While simultaneously reducing taxes and boosting the economy, are they are wizards or liars? You just need look at Farages entire political career and you know the answer to that. That guy is a Trump level conman and only the very stupid fall for it, just like Trump.

I’m surprised that any posters are willing to argue that the last budget was genuinely directed at child poverty. It was so obviously just a naked attempt to shore up Starmer’s position with the left of the party.

Last year Starmer removed the whip from seven Labour MPs who backed removing the cap. Months after that nothing was done about it in the first budget, although apparently it’s part of Starmer and Reeves’s urgent moral mission. 🙄

Neither Starmer nor Reeves would have done this if the pair of them weren’t - very unusually - close to being kicked out by the Labour party itself.

Yes, I think you are

How would Reform’s policies accelerate the problem? They’ve announced ‘pro-family’ policies to address the declining birth rate including tax and welfare changes.

I don't think it's a question of skill, more that whoever tackles it will probably be voted out.

I do think the current government is doing more to mitigate the issue than the previous one, but only in marginal ways.

The party I would worry most about is Reform, whose policies would hugely accelerate the crisis.

Oddly, on this issue alone, the best party is probably the SDP, who I dont really like (and who are extremely fringe).

I agree we need to plan, but nobody is going to take the bull by the horns because the worst effects are in the medium-long term, and the dramatic solutions needed would be hugely politically unpopular in the short term.

Do you think this government has the skills to do tackle this challenge?

The baby boom wasn’t an unprecedented outlier. It was a rebound from the sharp interwar decline, though still well below pre-WWI levels.

The real anomaly is the sustained drop since the 1960s, with global birth rates now at their lowest in recorded history.

Worldwide population growth has continued mainly because rising life expectancy masked falling fertility, but that demographic reality will hit hard in the coming generations.

In the UK, we’ve already felt it in terms of demographics- relying heavily on immigration to offset low birth rates and an aging population. Even if ever-increasing immigration wasnt controversial, it isn't sustainable either (because the number of potential immigrants will also reduce sharply).

I agree we need to plan, but nobody is going to take the bull by the horns because the worst effects are in the medium-long term, and the dramatic solutions needed would be hugely politically unpopular in the short term.

Assuming 37.5 hrs, full time employment, you'd need to earn a minimum annual salary of ~£28,000 for it to be theoretically possible for the new cap to impact you (which would put you just above the median national average).

If something is inaccessible to anyone below the average salary, I think its fair to say its inaccessible to low earners.

As you note, even some people with salaries that are multiples higher are struggling with the cost of living, so I think it's fair to assume that not many who earn slightly above that £28k threshold were diverting every available £ into their pension.

I haven't seen (dont think its available) the actual data on the salaries of people who sacrificed more than £2k (about 11% of workers), but it was HMRC that said:

"the costs of relief through salary sacrifice relate disproportionately to pension contributions from those on higher incomes."

Just better fed… 😬

I did always wonder why the wealthy starved their children, now I know it’s so they do better at school and get better jobs.

There’s a wealth of independent research on the link between child poverty, particularly nutrition, and academic attainment.

I thought the myth of welfare dependency had largely been dispelled and as for rewarding fertility https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-025-09935-5 would many people really have another child for sixty odd quid a week..? Not many surely. 😂

I fully agree the best outcome for people able to work is for them to be in work, and that education / public services are all part of that. But the idea that children should go without basic needs being met, when it is fully outside their control isn’t palatable. The majority of those who will actually benefit from the scrap are working families https://endchildpoverty.org.uk/new-research-majority-of-families-impacted-by-the-two-child-limit-are-working/

@TeenagersAngst

Possibly. Recognising the post war baby boom is a temporary situation and plam how to deal with it on that basis. Rather than increase the population permantly for what is a temporary effect. The planet doesn't need.more people because we are running out resources.

What does ‘degrowth’ look like?

I think I explained what I meant. Like I said, frogs…

We need degrowth anyway as we live on a finite planet that is rapidly running out of resources

Lifting the cap gives families more money today, but it doesn’t give them any tools, they are just better fed (parents dependent) in poverty. It rewards fertility, not productivity. Productivity is the only real way to break the cycle and get out of poverty.

Pissing.in.the.wind.

if you’re categorising people earning over £100k as high earners, I don’t agree

They’re in the top 4%. I don’t see how they could be categorised as anything else.

It wasn’t inaccessible to lower earners as long as they stayed above minimum wage. There have been people on MN on relatively low salaries saying they used it. They probably aren’t going to be massively affected though.

However, if you’re categorising people earning over £100k as high earners, I don’t agree. Yes, relative to the average salary, but not in reality after costs of living. We are like frogs in boiling water, accepting higher taxes on lower salaries. If tax bands had kept up with inflation the 40% rate should be somewhere around the 70k mark.

Tax reform is needed, this in itself would likely lead to higher tax receipts. Labour is playing the equivalent of whackamole instead of dealing with our problems strategically. This latest budget was a perfect example.

I don't agree. The salary sacrifice scheme was inaccessible to lower earners, and the £2k cap is unlikely to impact medium earners. It will likely have some effect on upper-mid/high earners, but mostly top earners.

It essentially became a tax planning tool disproportionately used by high-earners, and ballooned in popularity, meaning less and less tax revenue.

We can't afford the state pension as it is, so I think its a sensible change - albeit it simply papers over the cracks of a house that is fast approaching structural collapse.

Agree @NiftyBird

But it’s bonkers that given the cost of the state pension, Labour is introducing policies affecting those trying to save into a private pension. I’m not surprised as their approach since taking power has not been remotely cohesive.

The covid spike ended by 21/22 (welfare spending at 10.1%) and then spiked again in 22/23, back up to 10.9%.

For fairness, though, and having deep-delved into the data to ensure best comparables (as different sources use cash spending only, some roll in services in kind), it is expected to increase from 10.9% to 11% for Labour's first full year, and to 11.4% by 29/30.

The bulk of that 0.4% increase being due to the triple lock (which was also the primary driver of the increase at the end of the last Tory government).

Pension reform is what is really needed, but is also probably political suicide.

Interesting that the 1.5% growth during Labour's first year is being attributed to growth in late 24, partly due to policies inherited from the Conservative administration (Sunak and Hunt who were doing a good job after years of chaos).

Also attributed to inflation and high tax receipts from public sector wage increases.

Not growth thanks to investment.

Do you think this is good?

Jobs growth collapsed before the budget at fastest rate since pandemic
Employment across the private sector fell by 1.8 per cent in November, the steepest monthly decline since July 2021 and further job cuts are planned

Employment across the private sector fell by 1.8 per cent in November, the steepest monthly decline since July 2021, according to figures from the Bank of England.