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?

The amount being spent on trafficking and processing must be high though, Even if it's being sidestepped atm all the 'Elite border force' or taking down gangs or whatever - plus numbers going up

I think the eligibility criteria for social housing needs to be discussed to make it accessible for those genuinely in need
It gives great security once a tenancy is secured
Right to buy should also have its criteria reassessed and council housing should be replaced on a 1-1 basis to do otherwise is madness
No easy answers to any of it

Do you mean that we spending money in border control?
The Rwanda thing is not going to be used, therefore all the money put into that is gone, from our pockets.
Same as the PPE scandal, the money Truss lost to the country and so on.
Gone!

Depends on what you mean by border control?

Spending money trying to take out trafficking networks from the UK, paid by taxpayers here, sounds unrealistic. How do you get rid of everyone who does this in every country?

Sorry! I totally misunderstood you.

So she wants to raise social housing rents (which are often paid in full by UC housing element) rather than regulate and/or lower private rents ? 🤷‍♀️

@Bushmillsbabe

PRE ELECTION is the key here.

Now she's just blaming the Tories when the fact was they'd never be able to not raise taxes/increase borrowing if they were going to do what they said they were.

shes as full of BS as every other politician of any party.

Liam Fox I think? I've been wondering why more hasn't been made of that. Immediately Labour took over their catchphrase was "we've been left a terrible mess" but that is literally the exact same thing they were accused of by the Tories when they left office last time. Either they're both as bad each other or they both use the same excuse as to why they can't solve issues. OR it's actually true that there IS no way to actually run this country in an economically viable way when the NHS and Welfare system is now unrecognisable in size and scope from when it was devised.

@GoldenLegend

what an unnecessary & bitchy comment.

id rather someone posted with imperfect Spag (personal or phone issues) that has something decent to say, that someone with perfect Spag but nothing worth saying!!

Ironic if the Daily Mail (I usually call it by another name) complaining about social housing rents being perhaps 60-65% of market ones in ten years time, when many of the occupants are demonised by them.

Personally, it would not be my first increase to fund public services, as argued before, £1000 a year more for every large or high performance car as a minimum would be first on my list.

@TooBigForMyBoots

cant people stop banging on about the tries & simply focus on what's happening now.

sorry to single you out, you're FAR from the only one. However it's making any discussion impossible when from the beginning of a thread it gets derailed by Tory bitching.

Not my priority.
My priority is healthcare.
Followed by rent/ mortgage security.
Taking a grasp on bills, both energy and food/ clothing.
Education, because schools are in a mess.
It does not affect me personally, but childcare costs need to be in the list somewhere as it takes a huge amount of people's wages.
The pronlem we face is that quite a bit of our money is no longer in our pockets, is it? It has been spent on nothing productive or just lost to idiocy.

Regarding border control, I cannot see how we are spending more money now that we did a month ago?
But I fully agree with dismantling human trafficking gangs, for good. That will sort a problem, instead of just patching up things.

Again, personally I was expecting tax raises, not a surprise there if it happens. I am ok to pay more taxes, on the condition I get the services I pay for.

Same old shit. Different sandwich.

The world is a bit different this time round. Borrowing money just isn't an option any more. So anything extra is going to be paid for out of taxes.

I don't think the squealing has even started yet.

Labour have started splashing the cash ... sooner or later the piper is going to have to be paid.

🙄

But I fully agree with dismantling human trafficking gangs, for good. That will sort a problem, instead of just patching up things.

If you can incarcerate some people, as hard as that is, how do you stop more people taking their place and trafficking?

And yet all the news pundits, say that the big hole has been caused by the recent massive overspend on public sector workers.

I have 2 friends one is social housing one in private rent both in UC. The LHA allows the full rent to be paid on one of the homes which is just over double the SH rent - raising the SH rent will just be one government department paying the other ??!! Regulate private rents and that’s less money going to the landlords who are overcharging and that’s what will save money - reduce the LHA not increase social rents !

There are 2 million housing benefit claimants living in social housing, (a further 580,000 in the private rental sector) are Labour going to increase housing benefit payments or will they expect claimants to just find the additional money for rent?

--

I am also interested to see how this will be squared. I believe there are mentions that the benefit bill is also in her sight. i guess it is all a wait and see thing at the moment.

Cameo appearance in Wallace and Grommet

noted

No, you aren't. UC assessments give up to the eligible amount, which does not have to be 100% of the rent, even for social housing.

Why do you think that the changes will affect rent in the HA system?
That is not mentioned in the Guardian.
Is it suggested in other media?
Benefits, sick pay and carer allowance will most likely affect the more financially vulnerable, so I do not think she will go for those? At least big substantial changes.

Yes exactly - different areas have different allowances for what they’ll pay that may be what needs looking at even a very slight reduction in LHA would reduce slightly what each landlord gets but overall make a big saving. Raising the SH rents just means the government passing money back and forth to itself as they are much lower so often covered entirely by the housing element

good analysis. thanks. been wanting to see who exactly is expected to foot this bill.

Personally I think she should go for the single person council tax allowance reduce that by 2%