Rachel Reeves can’t win, can she?

It’s ridiculous to cancel an idea that she hadn’t even announced. Kafkaesque. She’s missed an opportunity if she doesn’t tax rich people more. Also, all the talk of businesses needing the help-we always hear this, from all parties, but where’s the proof?

Can you see the line where it states how it’s funded?

‘Tax increases’ and ‘more borrowing’. keep reading past the first line.

’Let’s be clear’ very Labour like

Right, lets be clear, a 70billion increase in spend, is not increasing the black hole by 70billion.

This. Why is there so little effort to get back the taxpayer's money that was appropriated by grifters and incompetents like Michelle Mone, just to give one example.
Surely the government could put together a housing plan that would be state run and offer jobs and apprenticeships? Build in community centres and allotments? I was brought up in a huge new town built in the 70s, mostly prefab houses. They are all still standing today and the town has got shopping centres, a new hospital, leisure centre, parks and so on. Yes, it has taken decades, but you have to start somewhere.

She needs to get a spine and get on with it. Doing the budget late has made it even worse than normal. And that's without with the constant leaking / briefing and chopping and changing.
She isn't coming over as a strong, decisive politician.

Why do you say you would know if it happened?

It was everywhere, you did miss it.

Budget delivers large increases in spending, tax, and borrowing

30 October 2024 | Economic and fiscal outlook

The Budget increases spending by £70 billion annually, with two-thirds on current and one-third on capital spending. Half is funded through tax increases which raise £36 billion annually and push the tax take to a record 38 per cent of GDP. The rest is funded by £32 billion more borrowing annually which temporarily boosts GDP growth to 2 per cent in 2026, but leaves output unchanged in the medium term.

https://obr.uk/budget-delivers-large-increases-in-spending-tax-and-borrowing/#:~:text=The%20Budget%20increases%20spending%20by,10%20and%2016%20billion%20respectively.

• She could stop procrastinating
• She could stop stressing out half the house holds in the UK with her wavering
• She could bring the budget forward. Half the reason revenues are down in so many companies is that people aren't making purchasing decisions until the full horror of her budget is know
• She could take a decision, stand by it and live or die by that decision because she thinks it is the best option - it's called conviction.

• She could stick with her beliefs instead of cowtowing to the back benchers. She clearly thinks keeping her job is more important than the buoyancy of our national GDP.

The current Labour leadership are not governing for the Country they are governing for and pandering to their back bench MPs. Welfare Reform and cutting the huge bill? Back bench MPs stymied that, the leadership caved which was weak and cowardly.

Income tax rises to sort out the mess, caused in part by the first Labour Budget where a 20 Billion black hole inceased to 40 Billion in less than a year, back bench MPs stymy that.

The constant flip flopping and lack of discipline and control of the Labour Party is a very bad joke now.

Can you read?
I just defended Boris Johnson FGS!

The thread isn't pro anyone and who knew you worked for MN.

Sorry but figures that are thrown about without proof don't count.

Shit happens. I agree but she caused herself a hell of a lot of problems by not being honest or realistic in the manifesto.

If you know that bad things happen then why bind yourself with crazy promises about not raising the major taxes that could actually raise revenue? Hee piecemeal approach and hammering businesses is terrible and destroying the economy but she still carries on because they don't want to look like they have broken a key promise that should have never been made in the first place.

Could Reeves have foreseen that lifting the two child cap was something that the party would want to do? Why was this omitted from the manifesto? What excuse is there for it?

Politicians do have to deal with the unexpected, true. So the costs of Covid, for example, is no answer by this government to anything. The costs of it were there for them to see. And the then opposition wanted even more costly measures to be taken.

What compensation scandals weren’t funded, and in what way?

Business itself has said she’s spooked the markets.

So you are pro Labour.

But why would you know? Are you in gov? You did miss it.

£36bn on taxes £32bn on borrowing

What can she do? Do what always used to happen, say nothing about anything until she gives the budget. No drip feeding, no leaks, nothing.
This. A lot of this Government's problems are of their own making.

(Sorry I'm late to the party. MN was glitching)

Where did you get £70billion from? I ve never seen that figure and i would have if it were true.

Reeves wasn't to know that the previous chancellor hadn't funded compensation scandals and she certainly had no idea about the cost of tariffs.

There is too much criticism of Reeves simply because she is Labour, she has never said taxes would increase and Bond markets have risen worldwide, just as stock markets have fallen, DJ down 1.65% - driven by tech sell-offs.

The fact people claim she has spooked the markets, clearly have no idea or are pushing an agenda.

Administrations have to deal with what happens during their term, Boris Johnson certainly had no idea Covid was coming down the track, did he lie during the 2019 election campaign? of course not.
Taxes went up, despite the manifesto stating the opposite.

They have handed the keys to Farage anyway. I could literally describe the current budget in exactly the same way you describe how Brexit was managed. Shambolic, expensive and endless.

The problem with this Labour government is that they have lacked conviction. I don't mean that in the ordinary way that most lefties means which is to hand out public money left right and centre as this is simply unrealistic with such high levels of debt and such a massive dependency on the markets.

They could however have been brave and said they would rejoin Europe. Maybe it wouldn't have won the last election but they would be in a lot better position now. They could stand by the welfare cuts they know are needed to shore up the economy and provide confidence to the markets. They could introduce tax rises but explain that this alongside cuts will mean that debt will reduce and this is absolutely necessary for the long term security and stability of our country. If we end up needing a bailout it will be the vulnerable dependents of the state that will suffer most. It is completely irresponsible to throw them to the wolves for short term political gain. It's like a parent that keeps giving you sweets to keep you happy in the knowledge that your teeth are rotting and you're putting on weight. This is not kind, it is the opposite!

The media go after anyone for £. It was Sunak and partygate while Labour cheered. Now it’s them it’s not so great.

The media is majority owned by the rich and right wing. She's dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't. Labour can't win with the media.

The difficulty is that discipline within the parliamentary Labour Party is almost non-existent. Leaks, briefings and counter-briefings are what’s now driving policy, and this is where it gets us.

We all look back now at the days of Blair and Campbell, and the spin machine as less than desirable, but at least there was discipline, and that meant Blair and Brown could deliver on policy. Ofc disastrous on Iraq, but domestically meant that they could deliver actual change.

It's not about 'winning' or getting the least complaints from the public.

It's about having a clear, rational plan to improve the economy and public services.

No she can't win. She should have been out over that renting fiasco. She can't even run her own affairs never mind a country's.

Labour aren’t reversing are they? In which case their own anti growth policies on top will make things worse.

@EasternStandard the biggest anti-growth policy was and is Brexit.

Not putting in anti growth policies would be a start. Incentivise rather than hammer business.

@Marshmallow4545 Corbyn may well have wanted Brexit, but the vast majority of the Labour party did not and they were certainly not responsible for the shambolic, endless and expensive way it was implemented. That lies squarely with the Tories. As for why we're not rejoining- come on, you know this one, it would be like handing the keys to Downing Street to Farage on a plate.

I actually agree with most of the measures you suggest- especially the triple lock, but they are barely going to touch the sides when it comes to reducing spending/the defecit. My original point stands- there is NO MONEY and very little RR can do in terms of cuts or raising revenue.

Well she could stop making promises she can’t keep.
She (and her cronies) could make a decision and stick to it.
She could cut the waffle and give us a clear plan.

For starters