Thread 38 Sunak: Soooo, square one is an option then?

[AdamRyan]

Thanks to @cornettoninja For the epic title!

@BIossomtoes So you think she is being supported and getting value for her tax in line with the benefits of a 2 income household?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/02/conservatives-economic-record-budget-deficit-gdp-tax-tory-budget

https://twitter.com/HPIAndyCowper/status/1764219445264679245

A short thread on why what Hunt said this morning is bollocks when it comes to the NHS.

Yep, that's a good summary of the mess.

I came off Twitter/X because it got so bloody toxic, so it won’t let me see threads any more.

Yep... it is all so depressing isn't it. I also read Liam Thorpes article.
I have no real idea why Hunt was on this morning. He can't answer Qs prior to the budget, he can't name any particular group, that's a Q for the Home Secretary, that's up to the Conservative Party etc etc. it was a load of nothingness.

Hunt won't be interviewed after the Budget because that would give an opportunity to dig over the details and choices they've made - being interviewed now means he can give fact free answers whilst pretending to be accountable.

Cleverly will probably say that it's for the PM to provide details of groups! PM will avoid answering altogether. Nobody gets any answers to anything.

What do you means there's no accountability? This system has worked perfectly for the last 14 years!!

Just reading this article from The Guardian about Michael Gove being a constant in government (pretty much), how he's very right wing and champions right wingers in the party. But has a veneer of being reasonable and courteous. And what that means:-

apple.news/AiuqwETHkReG_J6pdlKR5yw

Not exactly stuff that posters on here aren't aware of but an interesting reminder.

Thanks for that @tobee .

I’ve been listening to a podcast examining Anders Breivik and his manifesto/motivations. The parallels between the rantings of a secluded maniacal loner and current right wing rhetoric is actually quite startling. I wonder how many people would be happy to revise their opinion of him publically since he was essentially an early adopter of the rhetoric they’re currently endorsing.

People are questioning if this is even legal

Jeremy Hunt has given more than £100,000 of own money to his constituency Conservative party to bolster chances of reelection amid warnings he could lose seat

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/03/jeremy-hunt-personal-donations-local-conservative-association-godalming-ash-seat?

I was coincidentally reading about Breivik too. He reaches maximum Norwegian prison term this year. Apparently, they can apply to extend it.

Actually that's not correct as maximum is 21 years but there is some big review date coming up.

Maybe he's offering to volunteer for the role rather than collect a paycheck he so clearly doesn't need? Or is it a tax deductable re-investment, hmm?

My initial thought was the tax detectable angle!

Well! He obviously thinks it is worth it.

Maybe £100,000 is peanuts to him though?

apple.news/AkpCzpy2vTuixuQ3uFQrotw

This is a good piece by Caroline Lucas

I was shouting at Laura , 'Ask him what his plan for economic growth is!'

They'll go on and on about the new research centre announced today, but that seems to be it as far as I can tell.

A con mp on R4 last night was asked about this. Apparently JH is just a very generous guy as he also raised a lot of money for charity doing a marathon. (I think in memory of his late brother?) While this is obviously an impressive feat of physical fitness and it's very sad that his brother died at a relatively young age, other people dipping into their pockets to sponsor Jezza doesn't make Jezza a generous dude.

Probably tax deductible as well.

Which doesn't stop her from facing a high marginal tax rate, or alter the reality that as a bottleneck it potentially disincentivises work. Like they all do.

And NI is an awful, regressive tax in all but name anyway and needs to go. It's further evidence that we're doing this wrong. Labour would do well to address these issues once they get in.

NI is the absolute opposite of regressive. It’s based on income and reduces for high earners. It really doesn’t matter what it’s called, if it was abolished tax rates would have to increase proportionately and high earners would feel the pinch hardest as they’re treated more favourably now than basic rate tax payers. Be very careful what you wish for.

NI is absolutely regressive.

It's a tax in all but name that applies only to certain types of income and certain age groups, and that falls disproportionately on middle PAYE earners bringing in their money through work. Hence the 2% on 50k, for example. It is unjustifiable.

It’s not regressive. That isn’t what regressive means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

Anyway, there’s a more appropriate thread for this discussion so maybe we should stop boring posters to this one.

I actually meant it as two separate words iyswim, so it's a tax that is regressive in the sense of regressive being less advanced. Clearly a tax that discriminates by age and that overwhelmingly applies to income earned from work by middle earners is backward. But I should've been clearer, that's my fault.

That said, it's not immediately obvious why you chose to raise it in response to the point about child benefit.

The Rwanda bill is back in the HoL today

This weekend a 7 year old girl drowned trying to cross the Channel with her family