[Politics] Who will be Chancellor on Jan 1st 2026?

[Is it PotG?]

A broken clock is right twice a day. This current situation has been brewing for ~5-years (arguably much longer). Reeves may have exacerbated matters, but she didn't create them.

One of the reasons an early election was called IMO.

If you want to max the credit card hoping for growth, you don't increase employer costs (NI)....or do you?

 

[pb21]

If you want to max the credit card hoping for growth, you don't increase employer costs (NI)....or do you?

I'm not sure she has looked to max out the credit card, but the simple answer is probably no. But that isn’t all she has included in the budget to try to increase growth.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A broken clock is right twice a day. This current situation has been brewing for ~5-years (arguably much longer). Reeves may have exacerbated matters, but she didn't create them.

One of the reasons an early election was called IMO.

Those hell bent on attacking Labour, as they did all throughout the Dave, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunk omnishambles will continue to do so.
With zero credibility as 'political analysist, but eleven out of ten for tory campaigning diligence..

And whether the OP realizes this or not, he's just added another tummy-tickle thread for their enormous gleeful pleasure.

There are at least two 'aren't Labour and Starmer shit' threads on NSC already, one started the day they were elected .

People of course have a right to start them if the see fit.
And people, the same people or other people, have a right to start more.

But if they do, other other people have a right to take the piss.

However, if the OP feels my comments are too spikey and personal, I apologize for any hurt feelings.

 

[Weststander]

Those hell bent on attacking Labour, as they did all throughout the Dave, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunk omnishambles will continue to do so.
With zero credibility as 'political analysist, but eleven out of ten for tory campaigning diligence..

And whether the OP realizes this or not, he's just added another tummy-tickle thread for their enormous gleeful pleasure.

There are at least two 'aren't Labour and Starmer shit' threads on NSC already, one started the day they were elected .

People of course have a right to start them if the see fit.
And people, the same people or other people, have a right to start more.

But if they do, other other people have a right to take the piss.

However, if the OP feels my comments are too spikey and personal, I apologize for any hurt feelings.

I know it’s madness, but (you possibly? and) I predicted all this last July. A mass media and social media lust to bring down ministers and governments …. of any colour. Way, way more that Musk, Farage and a few right wingers on nsc. Even R4 and socially minded LBC presenters talk about whether RR will survive another 12 months. Anti Coalition and anti Tory nsc’ers who got a boner over the 14 years to 2024 every time a cockney hack or Beth Rigby shouted across Downing Street “Are you going to resign minister?” are now witnessing exactly the same mood music.

My personal view. RR has made some significant errors of judgement, even if Labour stalwarts don’t think so, they’re an awful look in the public eye, she’ll always be tainted by them. A too late first budget, too low a cut off for WFA, employers NIC at the wrong time. But with her BoE background, I’d like her to stay, to be given a chance to have a successful overall legacy. Post 1990 only Ken Clarke ticks all the boxes imho. Tonight on R4 he said she deserves to stay, it would be madness to sack her.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I know it’s madness, but (you possibly? and) I predicted all this last July. A mass media and social media lust to bring down ministers and governments …. of any colour. Way, way more that Musk, Farage and a few right wingers on nsc. Even R4 and socially minded LBC presenters talk about whether RR will survive another 12 months. Anti Coalition and anti Tory nsc’ers who got a boner over the 14 years to 2024 every time a cockney hack or Beth Rigby shouted across Downing Street “Are you going to resign minister?” are now witnessing exactly the same mood music.

My personal view. RR has made some significant errors of judgement, even if Labour stalwarts don’t think so, they’re an awful look in the public eye, she’ll always be tainted by them. A too late first budget, too low a cut off for WFA, employers NIC at the wrong time. But with her BoE background, I’d like her to stay, to be given a chance to have a successful overall legacy. Post 1990 only Ken Clarke ticks all the boxes imho. Tonight on R4 he said she deserves to stay, it would be madness to sack her.

I take note of your views. Always do. In fact we were already on the same page on this. Yes, we did both predict trouble ahead, largely unavoidable, and predicted also by an astute Sunak which is why he cut and ran before the inevitable shit hit the fan. It was obvious was it not?

(And if Sunk had won he'd be in the same shit with, he would calculate, 5 years' of slack cut to fix it.
The same 5 years we should grant Labour. Maybe?)

And I agree that sniping at Labour's attempts to manage the piece right now is fatuous.
(and starting threads that snipe requires very clean hands or the OP will inevitably be accused of low party politicking.
Even if they aren't).
I may provide a service in that regard....critical thread on Labour and the economy started by a Labour member. Woo hoo!

If it transpires she has made egregious errors then Labour will need to re-set. Of course.

Ironically it is more likely Starmer will dig in his heels to defend the chancellor if she is subjected to hubristic and ludicrous criticism from all and sundry.
Well, I would. Maybe he's more ruthless.

The BBC are piling in because they need to be seen to be neutral.
And, of course, it can be fun for them. Maybe a tad inappropriate....but fun nevertheless.

Times are not yet interesting, but they are heading there. Maybe.

 

[Weststander]

I take note of your views. Always do. In fact we were already on the same page on this. Yes, we did both predict trouble ahead, largely unavoidable, and predicted also by an astute Sunak which is why he cut and ran before the inevitable shit hit the fan. It was obvious was it not?

(And if Sunk had won he'd be in the same shit with, he would calculate, 5 years' of slack cut to fix it.
The same 5 years we should grant Labour. Maybe?)

And I agree that sniping at Labour's attempts to manage the piece right now is fatuous.
(and starting threads that snipe requires very clean hands or the OP will inevitably be accused of low party politicking.
Even if they aren't).
I may provide a service in that regard....critical thread on Labour and the economy started by a Labour member. Woo hoo!

If it transpires she has made egregious errors then Labour will need to re-set. Of course.

Ironically it is more likely Starmer will dig in his heels to defend the chancellor if she is subjected to hubristic and ludicrous criticism from all and sundry.
Well, I would. Maybe he's more ruthless.

The BBC are piling in because they need to be seen to be neutral.
And, of course, it can be fun for them. Maybe a tad inappropriate....but fun nevertheless.

Times are not yet interesting, but they are heading there. Maybe.

Sound assessment, I agree. Glad you don’t fall into the BBC are right wing nonsense. Genuinely, I know at least two right wing people in my world, who deem the BBC woke and left wing. Also nonsense.

 

[Ethelwulf]

You can not fix 14 years of shit over night

 

[Pavilionaire]

There is no point getting rid of Reeves if she is replaced by someone who will execute the same policies.

Labour have now realised they have boxed themselves in on tax and on Europe, so are trying to change the optics by reaching out to China and talking up AI.

However, this is tinkering around the edges, as is changes to WFP, farmer's Inheritance Tax. She needs to tackle wealth inequality, and she needs to simplify tax to reduce red tape. There is a big problem that gets no attention and that is increasingly old and infirm people with huge assets unable to manage them or complete Tax Returns.

I don't think there is any way out of this bind until we get better trade deals and we start thinking outside the box. These days even a couple earning a combined £100k gross a year will struggle to help their kids get on the property ladder.

 

[Bakero]

I don't think there is any way out of this bind until we get better trade deals and we start thinking outside the box. These days even a couple earning a combined £100k gross a year will struggle to help their kids get on the property ladder.

These days a couple earning 100k gross might struggle to get themselves on the property ladder.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Personally I don't think it's 'obviously' going to be RR.

Mistakes (WFA, NI increases / lowering threshold etc) early on means she's put the Govt. on the back foot, economy wise.

Depends if you define those as mistakes or not I guess.

We've got to undo 14 years of the most appalling Tory mismanagement of our country. It doesn't happen in six months so we need to give them a break for a bit.

 

[jcdenton08]

Depends if you define those as mistakes or not I guess.

We've got to undo 14 years of the most appalling Tory mismanagement of our country. It doesn't happen in six months so we need to give them a break for a bit.

It’s the unforced errors which trouble me, not the broader economic outlook. We all know that Covid, Brexit and global markets are playing the biggest part. Implementation of the WFA cut was a huge cock up, they look like they’re going after the little guy.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It’s the unforced errors which trouble me, not the broader economic outlook. We all know that Covid, Brexit and global markets are playing the biggest part. Implementation of the WFA cut was a huge cock up, they look like they’re going after the little guy.

No doubt the optics of WFA were seized upon, but the policy is undoubtedly correct, in my view at least. It was probably impossible to implement the policy without bad optics, so they suck it up.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Sound assessment, I agree. Glad you don’t fall into the BBC are right wing nonsense. Genuinely, I know at least two right wing people in my world, who deem the BBC woke and left wing. Also nonsense.

I'd argue both sides have a point.

The Tories recognised that the BBC was starting to lean left so stacked the board with friendlies.

There are also numerous programs on the BBC that have been sacrificed for the culture wars. Doctor Who being a prime example. Thank god they also ditched Nihal telling us how racist we are on Radio 5 for 2 hours a day as another.

In some cases (not all granted) the neutrality is gone to one side or the other as the power struggle in the organisation continues. I don't see the BBC as genuinely neutral as I did say 20 years ago.

 

[Seecider]

Therein lies such a lot of the problem. Instead of meeting with the people whose job it is to create the regulations, she needs to meet with the business leaders who are suffering from the regulations. Then, when she has a long list of rules that should be repealed and bodies that should be abolished, then she can go to the regulators and see if they can defend themselves.

All very well meeting with business "leaders". The damage is done. Her forecasts were based on growth. What she has done with the NI hoick is to erode business confidence and growth now looks unlikely. I don't believe that she has any understanding of "business", and probably few of her colleagues do either. The damage is done.

 

[Bozza]

No doubt the optics of WFA were seized upon, but the policy is undoubtedly correct, in my view at least. It was probably impossible to implement the policy without bad optics, so they suck it up.

The optics are bad because they are denying some very poor and vulnerable people from money that was vital to allow them to have the heating on just a little bit.

When you intentionally penalise some of society's most vulnerable, ignoring all pleas from those in the sector who know the damage, health concerns and likely deaths that will be directly caused by your policy, the optics are always going to be bad.

The optics are bad because the policy has been implemented badly.

Removing the universality of the benefit is unquestionably a sensible and pragmatic thing to do - millions of people were receiving money they didn't need, and that money can be spent better.

But many hundreds of thousands of people who did genuinely need that money have been denied it, and subjected to an utterly miserable winter,

Using terms such as "cad optics" or "poorly communicated" is to be in denial of what they've actually done.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Depends if you define those as mistakes or not I guess.

We've got to undo 14 years of the most appalling Tory mismanagement of our country. It doesn't happen in six months so we need to give them a break for a bit.

Agree 100% about the Tories - but Labour has had a long time to prepare for office, and to score own goals so early is poor IMO.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

No doubt the optics of WFA were seized upon, but the policy is undoubtedly correct, in my view at least. It was probably impossible to implement the policy without bad optics, so they suck it up.

Really?

Tell that to older people, just above pension credit limit, who didn't put their heating on last week for fear of not being able to pay the bill.

Means test it - no problem - but it's hurting vulnerable people at the level it is now.

 

[albionalba]

I'd argue both sides have a point.

The Tories recognised that the BBC was starting to lean left so stacked the board with friendlies.

There are also numerous programs on the BBC that have been sacrificed for the culture wars. Doctor Who being a prime example. Thank god they also ditched Nihal telling us how racist we are on Radio 5 for 2 hours a day as another.

In some cases (not all granted) the neutrality is gone to one side or the other as the power struggle in the organisation continues. I don't see the BBC as genuinely neutral as I did say 20 years ago.

Yes, interesting points and as we head for BBC charter renewal against the background of Labour desperate to be seen as welcoming all comers including China (and notwithstanding MI5 warnings) it's worth remembering Starmer's speech at the international investment summit where he promised to sell any UK IP or assets to anyone from anywhere if it generated inward investment. He used the phase 'deeper in the bones of this nation' to describe how he'd (apparently) be happy to see (say) Dr Who owned by Ten Cent in the future. Now, of course I don't think he really meant that and it was part of the early Labour open for business rhetoric but it shows how finely balanced the BBC's position is ahead of the new charter. For those who criticise the BBC and question attempts at impartiality, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The optics are bad because they are denying some very poor and vulnerable people from money that was vital to allow them to have the heating on just a little bit.

When you intentionally penalise some of society's most vulnerable, ignoring all pleas from those in the sector who know the damage, health concerns and likely deaths that will be directly caused by your policy, the optics are always going to be bad.

The optics are bad because the policy has been implemented badly.

Removing the universality of the benefit is unquestionably a sensible and pragmatic thing to do - millions of people were receiving money they didn't need, and that money can be spent better.

But many hundreds of thousands of people who did genuinely need that money have been denied it, and subjected to an utterly miserable winter,

Using terms such as "cad optics" or "poorly communicated" is to be in denial of what they've actually done.

We've had this debate. The WFA had to be means tested rather than give it to anyone. The level at which they are cutting it off can be debated, I don't have a problem with that. But high fuel prices are a reality for everyone, not just pensioners. I would argue it should be rolled out to the needy across society.

Fundamentally though our economy should be run in such a way that pensioners can afford to live on their pension and not need additional handouts, and that is a significant failing of the last government, and probably the several before it.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Really?

Tell that to older people, just above pension credit limit, who didn't put their heating on last week for fear of not being able to pay the bill.

Means test it - no problem - but it's hurting vulnerable people at the level it is now.

Sure, raise the level at which people get it, I don't disagree. But I guarantee we'll still hear stories of people 'just above the cut off ' who didn't put their heating on.

To be honest there were times I didn't put my heating on last winter myself because of the cost and I'm well above any possible cut off. We'd be better off actually getting the bills to be cheaper rather than just handing more tax income to the power companies so they can make big profits.