"Fully funded and fully costed"

Could not bring it upon myself to vote for either of them and cannot see that changing at the next election either.

But the point is, it's a two party system. No other party has a remote chance of forming a government.

So while the bedwetters don't like the "well they're better than the other lot" argument, it is extremely valid. We were faced with an either/or. And the other lot have had over a decade and we can see the damage done all around us.

Anyhoo, it's all a bit immaterial till the budget. I think Labour have taken too long to get to it personally. They've left a vacuum to be filled by rumour, and they just need to get on with it and start saying what they're going to do. I accept the picture is bad. I've spent the last two years on here pointing out how the tories have been deliberately scorching the earth and making it hard for the next government. It was plain to see, so the fact that we're now learning the true cost of that vandalism is hardly surprising.


I think my main question now is probably around Europe.

We can see how much importance the government is putting behind investment. Bring in business and the jobs and taxes will grow and allow us to spend and repair the country. All good and obvious and the meetings last week were very promising. But the elephant in the room is the fact that we're no longer part of the huge EU market.

How long can you talk about investment and what you're doing to improve it, when the single biggest and simplest thing you could do would be to rejoin the Customs Union?

Not sure what the arguments would be against it. Immigration hasn't come down. We won't make any new laws that put us at loggerheads with our neighbours and threaten our business interests. We certainly haven't seen any sunlit uplands. We haven't seen £350 for the NHS or free trade deals with the global giants, beyond rolling over existing EU deals.

So, I suppose what I'd ask is: what would you miss about being outside the Customs Union if we were to re-join?

Can't argue with that at all^

The list of benefits was very short,some bought the 'sovereignty' part but that was a red herring with ECHR,your own standards etc couldn't materialise. The Singapore on Thames rubbish another pup,it is an abject failure and a direct link to winter fuel payments and the other forthcoming nasties.

Payback for stupidity.

You seem to recognise  our system of democracy but struggle to accept that we had a "once in a generation",  "either / or"   referendum and the people said No More !

Freedom may have a short term cost (it usually does) , but the people said "go for it" . Respect that and stop bickering - It's done.

Labour said "what they were going to do" (or not do) before the election but  appear to be about to backtrack  on virtually everything within 3 months. 

You lap up the lies and pretend to not notice.

Respect what? The 4% loss of GDP per annum ?business avoiding the UK?freedom of movement? The once in generation is no badge of honour and is compounded by covid debt.

No wonder it was being hushed and almost a taboo subject because the truth is ugly.

You think there would be winter fuel cuts on pensioners if there wasn't a brexit? No chance and it would be a lot better forthcoming budget as well.

I value freedom from the shackles of EU dogma  more than a 4% pay rise (or whatever the latest made up figure is). The people apparently agreed with me. It is not always about counting every last penny.

The "blame everything on Brexit" mantra is tiresome , inaccurate  and frankly a waste of effort. . We are where we are and we ain't going back in anytime soon - look forward.

Okay, an alternative would be many would not be in the same boat as you but would want the best for the people of the country by it doing 'well' financially. Trade is important and you have more or less put sanctions on yourself.

You are correct in saying 'it is what it is' and not going back, Starmer at least is trying to reset the toxic Tory European relationship and seems to be trying to invest in infrastructure projects.

I will stick on my point that 'nasty' decisions are tied in with brexit, they won't have happened.

But who said it could only be once in a generation?

It was never even determined what brexit looked like.


I'd personally like a government to drop the childish "well, you promised..." and just get on with making decisions that will improve the country. I'd love Labour to stop dodging it and actually accept that being outside the EU is costing us money and not bringing in any benefits. Just be grown ups and treat the electorate like grown ups. Refusing to answer and hiding from it, especially when your focus is growth, just looks a bit daft imo.

You could be a brexity party, and campaign on decline, falling in standards of services etc and just say they are a cost of "freedom". That's fine. But if you want to improve things through growth, then ignoring the most obvious solution looks one-eyed.

Increasing taxes ,from an already all time high,  is not "focussing on growth", no matter how you dress it up.

The referendum was won on a blanket of lies and wishes and racism.

The truth is it's making us all poorer.

It's killing pensioners who lose their winter fuel payment

Labour removed the winter fuel payment from vulnerable pensioners - not Brexit,  or the Tories - the Labour party.

The tories took more than £500 from "vulnerable pensioners" by freezing the tax allowance during years of high inflation.

Brexit bonus... Freeze the pensioners.

Brexit  Blamed for freezing the Pensioners Nothing do with Mental ED spending multi billions on his pathetic Clean Energy Push or Spending Billions on unknown men who are arriving in the country

Tories Gone , New Tories In , well done yee have all been Mugged

Surely you must be pleased at Starmers handling of the racist riots though TON?

And to think all of the Labour supporters called me all sorts of names before the election for saying that Labour would do exactly what they have done (or say they are going to) they have not actually passed anything yet apart from the winter fuel payment law. Extra Capital gains, extra inheritance tax, almost certainly more employer NI, higher duties on drink, fuel and share dealing. They also have an extra 20% from VAT after the last 2 years of inflation in non food goods. But they are still £20 billion short.

You are being unfair, sageform.  We are still very early in Starmer's "10 year plan" which is intended to fix the health service.  And it will probably be the first of many.  In the Soviet Union, the 5 year plans, introduced by Stalin, continued right up until the end of communism.

Smash the Gangs

647 MIGRANTS IN 10 DINGHIES ILLEGALLY CROSSED THE CHANNEL YESTERDAY

Over 28,000 have now crossed the channel this year

In the last 7 days 1450 migrants in 25 dinghies have illegally crossed the channel

plenty of Protests going on in Ireland , I would keep your eye on them tbh

Approx 30k plus  to look after each of these arriving folks per Year , how much longer can this be sustained ?

the great tax Robbery will not cover it

I gather they are now looking for hotel rooms again, that's a bit embarrassing.

Thanks for the update Nanny.
Fortunately, tomorrow there is going to be stormy weather in the Channel.

Dave, looks like the tax allowance freeze is going too be extended, it's going from bad to worse.

Have we ever been better off under a Labour Government in the last 50yrs.

No better place on the planet to be an illegal immigrant tbf, it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

97-2008

We were all much better off and the drugs were better too!

Not sure these grumpy old men understand about budgets.

None appear to have grasped the concept.

14 years of thieving the family silver to be paid for

And brexit on top... Oops

Without Brexit we would be paying another £70 billion to the EU. Not sure being a member would generate that much extra tax in the next year.

Lol, best one yet, nurse!

There’s going to be a lot of pasty faced Guardian readers with “Brexit Broke his Heart” gravestones in a few years.

Lots of brexiteers with brexit turned his heating off head stones

Too stubborn, old brexiteers hanging around the crematorium
waving off old mates,...

Did anyone have 3 Brexits references on their bingo card?

Cup of tea, 3?

Cup of tea, 3?

Bring back the Tories

The Party of Business

Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq confirmed Britain has paid the EU £23.8bn as part of its “financial settlement” agreement.

On top of the money already spent, Ms Siddiq confirmed in response to a parliamentary question that Britain will pay another estimated £6.4bn to the bloc to settle the UK’s pre-existing financial obligations.

When Brexit Party members turned their back during the playing of the EU anthem, it was a statement of intent. I get the impression that if Farage had been PM from Brexit day one, we wouldn't have paid the EU another penny.  And furthermore we would not have subsidised the taxi service for illegals in the Channel.

The UK a pariah country under sanctions, that would have been a good look.

Brexiteers showing lack of intelligence

Nothing changed...

If we had stayed perhaps our economy would be growing as much as Germanys now.

Maybe more so, but keep drinking the kool aid.

Just type German economy into your search engine. In a shocking state and being in the EU will still cost them a huge amount in contributions to help the "poorer nations" Their car industry is in free fall. All of the remaining Remainers should move to a member state to reap the generous benefits on offer.

Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq confirmed Britain has paid the EU £23.8bn as part of its “financial settlement” agreement.

On top of the money already spent, Ms Siddiq confirmed in response to a parliamentary question that Britain will pay another estimated £6.4bn to the bloc to settle the UK’s pre-existing financial obligations.

In other words these payments (and more) would be made if we were still in the EU.

So £30 Billion was a good deal?

If you sign up to paying 10% of a 5 year contract then you are in for paying 10% of the cost for 5 years. Once all of the existing projects are completed, we don't have to keep paying unless we choose to. We might wish to contribute to joint research projects etc.

Weren't payments to the EU made and half roughly given back in terms of grants though?

Do European firms really invest in the UK now?

Has the 'red tape' hit UK exporters and more importantly will EU imports cost more when brexit is actually implemented?

Germany i think was really hit hard because of relying on Russian oil/gas and took the moral route of saying no as well as taking in a lot of Ukranian refugees

Germany stated it wasnt reliant on russian gas nearly two years ago.

How does taking in refugees affect German GDP negatively.

In the case of Ireland most were housed and also received welfare of 200e+ weekly until fairly recently.

We got half of our eu payments back directly.

The money we made by being in the club repaid the outgoings many times over



The kool aid drinkers did their research but heaven
knows what they were reading.

Even Rees mugg told them there would be costs to pay for 5 decades or more

But forum thickos keep on spouting sh1te

That's funny from the biggest gob on here.

Lol saddo, you had a bad day.

Tomorrow might be better.

Germany has trade surpluses galore and Dear Old Blighty has trade deficits month after month after month.

"Fully funded and fully costed"
Johnny The Guesser
17 Oct 24 14:46
"No tax rises on working people"
"Gangs smashed"
"Going for growth"

I'm glad I didn't fall for their lies. My conscience is clear.

Not to mention "Tough on Crime" or "Getting rid of sleaze and corruption"

donny, you infer that someone throwing an insult is having a bad day.
If that is true your life must be a nightmare.

Lol, a whole day to work that little gem out, but it's your output
that increases, and you get more shouty.

Still you might back a winner..

U TURN U TURN,BLAME IT ON THE BOGIE MAN

----you-have-to-laugh--- 21 Oct 24 16:10 
Lol, a whole day to work that little gem out, but it's your output
that increases, and you get more shouty.
..........


ha ha, you actually think everyone spends day and night on here like you, what a life.

Lol, part time shouty man.

How can this mob win a landslide victory based on a pack of lies ?

Higher bus fares.
Cold pensioners.
Increased borrowings - higher mortgage rates for longer.
Higher fuel costs.
Energy bills up.
Increased taxes for everybody, (including "working people")
No sign of "gang smashing" or the boats ever being stopped.
No sign of government driven growth. (You can't tax your way to growth.)
Constantly talked down the UK economy - (Who would want to invest here if the PM/COE keep repeating we are a basket case ?)
Four months of economic limbo waiting for tomorrow's bloodbath.


Has a party ever told so many lies in its manifesto before ?

It's been a shambles.

I don’t think they promise warm or cold pensioners Johnny

The reason they got elected was because people were fed up with the incompetence and lies of the last lot.

There were no parties
£350 million a week for the NHS
Protect our Borders
Sunlit uplands

Why do you think they got elected with a landslide?

Actually, since Brexit, the annual spend on the NHS has increased by more than £350 million.

What part of £350 million a week and £350 milllion a year do you not understand marks.

What point are you trying to make?

Thank you for pointing out my error in confusing per week with per month.
In 2015-16 (before Brexit), the annual spend on the NHS was £131.4 billion (£2560 million per week).
In 2022-23, the annual spend on the NHS was £164.7 billion (£3167 million per week).
So £607 million a week more is now spent on the NHS than before Brexit.

should be "confusing per week with per year."

source  https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/nhs-spending-plans-and-reality-over-the-past-10-years

Our charts here present the figures in real terms, stated in 2023/24 prices
(The figure for 2023-2024 is almost the same as the previous year £165.3 billion.)

"Spending plans are fully costed and fully funded"

Has there ever been a more blatant manifesto lie ?

Nobody voted for this 5 year plan - nobody.

Lowers the bar for future election manifestos - A sad day for democracy.

Lol, Johnson fan making fool of himself again.

Talk about butter and twisted

Would not make a lawyer! Absolutely no evidence presented.

Nobody voted for this 5 year plan- nobody

Johnny

How many 5 year plans have you voted on?

Stop whining. You really are making yourself look pathetic. Man up!

Have you even read the manifesto ? - the fiscal plan ?

"Plans fully costed , fully funded" - no mention of borrowing a projected £150bn for a spending splurge.

They lied.

The plan is to get budget to balance, something lacking from tory austerity budgets.

https://x.com/alexharmstrong/status/1851782579592085722

Omfg

They lied!

I bet you feel terribly cheated. Maybe the Tories can take Labour to Court?

Why on Earth would people vote Labour and give them a huge majority.

Maybe 14 years of Tory LIES and incompetence!

Omfg

They lied!

I bet you feel terribly cheated. Maybe the Tories can take Labour to Court?

Why on Earth would people vote Labour and give them a huge majority.

Maybe 14 years of Tory LIES and incompetence!

Omfg

They lied!

Yip.

Well I didn’t vote for the Terrorist sympathiser!

Did you?

Robbing our pensioners and awarding inflation busting pay awards to incompetent left wing teachers and those hard grafting train drivers. Pension Savers in the private sector will now see their funds potentially subject to IHT but golly golly gosh defined public sector pension schemes will be exempt. Small and medium sized business's creaking under an immense strain of over regulation and cost gasping for air whilst our pensioners will be less represented in numbers after this winter. Same old tax, borrow and spend communist agenda as always. The markets hated it and they will have a big say in how long this shower lasts. Labour didn't get loads more people voting for them at all. They just turned their backs on the Tories. We will have another 4 years of this lot and then they will be kicked out. Totally out of their depths and they are just not very bright.

Can’t wait for the return to the Tory sunlit uplands.

We never had it so good

Bring back Doris and the Lettuce, they were titans

The likes of Michele Mone and wee Dougie making £60 million off the tax payers on a £200 million contract.

That’s what we need!

Whisperingdeath has no answers, so changes the subject...again.

Pension Savers in the private sector will now see their funds potentially subject to IHT but golly golly gosh defined public sector pension schemes will be exempt.

They aren't "exempt" - there is nothing to pass to their children.

Dependents pensions will not attract IHT from such schemes as an example and if you think that death in service death benefits of multiples of salary will be included for IHT purposes after they do the consultation review which would potentially mean taking a great deal of people past their IHT allowances when included with the rest of their estate I would be highly surprised. Also the 5 year guarantee from defined benefit pensions will surely not be included either. Just a couple of examples in reply to the above.

Dependents pensions are tiny in the scheme of things. Death in service goes to the spouse, nominated beneficiary or estate, so it will be treated exactly the same as a similar DC benefit if there are changes. The entire DC fund can go to a spouse not a fraction of the pension as in the DB. The spouse can then take measures to minimise exposure to iht.

btw this proposal was a logical reaction to the abandonment of the lifetime allowance, as instead of a vehicle for retirement funding, pensions became an obvious route for iht avoidance. Also btw I don't think it will be easy to impose this change, given that pension funds are normally trusts and any legislation might inadvertently allow creditors to access pensions.

Yes that is fair comment and we are seeing higher net worth individuals using pension schemes as IHT avoidable investments rather than using them for income in retirement and using carry forward provision to make larger than usual contributions into their plans to shelter more wealth from IHT.

..they do have to also die before they are 75 to pass on the pensions tax free under the current rules. Maybe they will arrange to die before 2027 to complete their neat tax planning ?

Should somebody who inherits a pension fund after the members death that exceeds age 75 be potentially paying IHT at 40% as well as their marginal rate of tax when they access benefits?

The new rules from 2027 have yet to be established. I would imagine that if the value of the fund is brought into IHT calculations then the beneficiaries would receive the funds free of further taxes , but who knows. with this bunch.

They won't tax it twice

A large part of the IHT regime is taxing stuff twice !!

I can see people taking their tax free cash , and giving that to their kids , and then hoping they live 7 years. Maybe that's what they want to happen ? - get that money moving around the economy.

..even taking money out that's taxed at 20% and moving that on - using IHT exemptions - to save 40% further down the line.

The main issue with the proposal is that funds are in trust and trustees are following instructions to pay the funds to someone. The estate is not involved anywhere in this arrangement, so who pays the IHT? To achieve the objective, I think they will have to dismantle the present rules about disposal of fund on death and force the fund go into the estate. So there won't be double taxation, just iht.

Good point Dave - I hadn't thought of the trust issue. The funds, after death,  will need to be paid from the pension pot  into the estate then presumably be treated just like cash at the bank.

The trustees aren't currently allowed to do this under the instructions they currently hold.

Ooooh - this could be fun , maybe a long running legal challenge ??

Reeves' budget has crashed my SIPP - there won't be anything left to pay IHT on at this rate.

Good job interest rates will be higher for longer - I'll get some back that way - but what about the youngsters with mortgages and those looking to buy  ? - she has badly let them down and increased stamp duty as well !

Bad picks Johnny, a bad workman blames his tools.

Interest rates higher won't recover your flopped pension
as difference will be small over a short period.

Your concern is touching YHTL - Don't worry it's been in there for years with maximum tax relief - it's like taking the top off a frothy beer - what's left still tastes good.

Crashed, won't be anything left...

Lol

Shirley DIS benefits are written in Trust. Are death in retirement the same or different?

Almost everything to do with most pension schemes is in trust.

Which makes things quite problematic, retrospective taxation and all

when I think a bit more about it, they will probably just make certain death payments "unauthorised" and subject to a very high tax charge.

They need to look at Trusts which is a way of rich people leaving paying tax to the rest of us.

Trusts on Pensions are however extremely important although using them as wealth transfer needs looking at.