What Rachel Reeves does next? Surprised no thread on this yet. It's all over Twitter

[Sharingsomewisdom]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13764547/Rachel-Reeves-mulls-tax-hikes-spending-squeeze-raising-rents-social-housing-Chancellor-sees-Government-borrow-3bn-forecast-month.html

Or am I the only one interested what she is eying next? Any comment on the reasonableness or otherwise of Rachel's next focus?

Liam Byrne. He said it was a joke and it might have been if it hadn't been true. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election

My point extends far beyond the control of a UK government.

Correction.

There are a total of 4.4 million social housing homes. 2 million are home to housing benefit claimants. The remaining 2.4 million will have to fund above inflation rent rises.

Funny how, for way too many people in the UK, that doesn't feel remotely true. I've heard this line trotted out in the last couple of months in order to sneer at Labour, but for who exactly is the economy in a very good place?

It's the same kind of 'Look over there!' claptrap as "they must've known how bad things were before they got in". Pathetic attempts to distract from the economic sinkhole the Tories caused (and left huge swathes of the country at the bottom of) before they slunk away like the rats they are.

She said she wouldn't increase Corporation tax, Income tax and VAT.

Very good point.
And for those who aren't claiming housing benefit, it may push them into poverty. And for those who are, it won't raise any money as government will just pay for it anyway. Or expect families to find the difference, putting them into poverty. Some of these may also be pensioners who have just lost their WFA.

I voted for Labour, and as an NHS worker I will probably do quite well out of them with pay rises. But I do not like the way they are treating vunerable people - between social rent increases, cuts to WFA and hitting families with children with SEN (who have felt need to resort to private schools as state schools have not met need) with VAT, the outlook is not great. RR is smart, she knew all this was coming before the election but gave us a load of twaddle about no tax rises, no rises in borrowing.

Ahh the superior grammar police

where full stops are more important than the content of the post

There is always a yearly rent increase. This is hardly news, outside of the RW press.

Plenty of people living in SH are far from poor.

I am glad they have SH because renting shouldn’t mean home insecurity. But SH tenants already have a massive economic advantage over private tenants.

Not all SH tenants are well off, just like not all pensioners are well off and plenty on basic state pension will suffer badly this winter.

But I walked round a big HA / LA estate in Brixton yesterday: every other car was a huge BMW or Mercedes or Audi etc. Plenty could pay more rent.

I hope the housing element of UC will cover those who really are poor.

That's not how economies work, the figures show it be be true whether you 'feel it' or not! 🤦‍♀️ The last few years have been dreadful for all economies worldwide, not just the UK. There are many reasons but covid is of course one of them. We are still in recovery but hopefully on course for a soft landing, and we are outperforming almost everyone else. You may never 'feel it' though as we could have the best economy in the world and you'd still be in poverty if the money isn't distributed towards you. Look at America - they do have the best economy, and they have extreme deprivation.

It's also not being used to sneer at Labour as it has nothing to do with Labour, other than they are apparently trying to convince people that the situation is much worse than it is. I'm just trying to fathom why they haven't mentioned it, especially when they were so quick to claim that they'd unearthed a multi-billion 'blackhole' that the Tories had apparently left them. You'd think they'd be thrilled to learn the economic outlook isn't anything like so bad as they believed. Now, they may just be so used to being rude about the Tories they just can't bring themselves to say something nice about them... they may be intending to take credit for the growth when it continues and hope nobody remembers it was already growing when they took over... or they may be concerned their policies are going to inhibit growth in which case they can then try to blame the failing economy on the Tories, again hoping nobody realises how good it was when they inherited it. All these possibilities are a bit worrying - if they have genuine confidence in their ability to stimulate growth they should be happy to acknowledge that we're already in a very good place and set to continue improving even if we do nothing, and then when they beat all the already positive forecasts they can show unequivocally that is was their policies that did it, engendering trust in both Labour and in left-wing economics.

Typing on your phone doesn't always work out correctly. Anything better to add to the thread?

Social landlords have been messed around regarding rent rises so have found it hard to plan in advance for big spending and their costs have risen with inflation

This is from the guardian article linked above:
"The Conservative-led coalition government initially set a 10-year rent settlement in 2012 that would lead to rents increasing by the rate of the retail prices index plus 0.5%. This was reversed in 2015 by the then chancellor, George Osborne, when he introduced an annual rent cut of 1% for four years in an attempt to reduce the housing benefit bill.

In 2020, the sector was given a five-year settlement of CPI plus 1%. However, the government later capped any increases at 7%, after the headline rate of inflation hit more than 11% in 2022"

I do. I make sure that people I don't like are face up so they get wizzled on all over their smug faces.

And yes. The Tories - remember them? The party of prudent financial governance 🙄 - have left a massive hole in the finances.

When it comes to the additional government borrowing, the question is not 'why the extra?' but 'how does this compare to what the previous government would have had to do?'. If the Tory govt had continued in power, they would have had a choice: continue with endless strikes and disputes in the public sector, or reach a settlement over pay & conditions. If the former, then just a continuation of semi-managed chaos; if the latter, then a higher pay bill and additional borrowing, and some semblance of stability. Labour have chosen the latter.

I wonder if there could be some kind of rent control brought in for those that claim HB in the private sector? After all, tenants don't see this money, it is paid directly to landlords for often exorbitant rents for substandard property. Get rid of section 21 and fixed term tenancy agreements and then reduce HB to levels of SH until sufficient SH exists.

Why should the HB bill be increased to pay private landlords?

Landlords couldn't evict tenants with the aim of charging higher rent unless HB were not a factor and I doubt private tenants would pay big bucks to live in a shit hole, especially if rent controlled amount was made public when advertising - rent control suggests £400 pcm but I want £1000 pcm - damp, poorly maintained, unfurnished - any takers?

I knew there would be at least one who would pounce on my 'joke note' (n.b.: what it says on tin) reference rather than respond to the main thrust of my text - completely about SH and the need to build more, asap.

I give nary a shit about the actual politics of my government - just want some capable people in charge of running our country. The last lot turned into screwballs imo so I'll give our current lot a decent year before I naysay too much and resort to the 'he said/she said' nonsense spouted prior to the most recent election, including manifestos (better produced as toilet paper) way too soon.

Agree with @rwalker re your post

Yep. And inflation falling with interest rates cut releasing substantial amount for Treasury. But this is against narrative

Re SH rents - it's a joke really. A lot of people there are on benefits anyway so will be covered by taxpayer. It's just a "clever" scheme to make middle class taxpayers to pay for social housing they won't get access to whilst struggling with own rents/mortgages

That was the claim pre GE

Such bitter tories still crying into their unused PPE masks…..

For those needing another source not DM

Unfortunately the tories have spent 14 years trashing public services and leaving us in a lot of debt. They also accidentally bumbled out of the single market which has damaged the economy. Labour now have to pick up the pieces. Sadly a lot of tories have very short memories and will blame Labour for the awful mess the tories have left.

Weren't they accusing Sunak of lying in the TV debates that Labour were going to increase taxes by £2000 ?

Let's see how that works out.

Quite. It may also make people who are in social housing and on benefits less likely to look for work if their rent will skyrocket. This is not complicated economics, it's been debated for decades - and rejected for decades. I think that anyone who was hoping we were finally getting an honest, intelligent and economically capable government should be a bit concerned.