CornwallFox

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

Again though, if you're a business that sells kids toys, baby clothes, whatever really. If people on benefits have a little more to look after their kids properly - and if not include your local corner shop for fags and booze - your business will have customers with more money. That's good for you. It will allow you to sell more, profit more, pay more. This is where we need to stop looking at things in isolation. People on benefits having more money also benefits those not on benefits.

Firstly I'm not proposing this as a policy, just pointing out economics isn't the reason not to do it. Second, it's pretty much self funding. Something never talked about is that spending isn't all one way. There's a multiplier effect when government spends in ways which impact the real economy. Businesses thrive and invest, the original spend all ends up coming back in tax one way or another, plus additional revenue comes from business profiting, expanding etc. tax revenues can end up being 6 or 7 times the amount spent in some cases. The country has struggled because austerity removed spend into the real economy. Tax cuts to business will always be liked by business, but without people spending money you just don't get the investment and growth you need. You get that through people spending money. And you get that by government spending into the economy to provide some liquidity. There's a reason austerity led to higher taxes and higher debt.

In 1975 the top rate on earned income was over 80%, and on unearned income 98%. The standard rate of tax was around 40%. And no, that wasn't the reason for the issues of the 70s before you say it.

It's not economists arguing against that. People spending money into the economy, putting money into local businesses so they can increase their revenues and invest is all good for the economy. The only downside to it is political - people don't like it.

Firstly, every penny paid out in welfare is spent in the real economy. It's good for the economy. Second, increasing the child benefit cap will lead to less child poverty and therefore less future spend on a whole host of things in education and healthcare, council services, and lots of other things. You always want glib answers, never want to truly explore the more complex picture politics always throws up.

Historically yes

We can't keep looking backwards. I often think there's a time and place things work perfectly in football but it isn't often repeated. We need to move on from ex players or ex coaches/managers/recruitment gurus

I often can't get excited about our players' social media output but this is dense by any stretch of the imagination. Can see why there's a feeling some of our players just don't give af. The bloke has been a permanent sub, reserve or loanee through his entire career. Just get rid.

You seem to be missing the point about the issue that's been raised.

I'm very, very precise with what I write. At no point did I claim the economy was doing great. I simply stated the fact it's doing better than the Tories wanted to believe.

Absolutely agree. It takes about 18 months for most policy changes to have any real world effect. People up in arms because the country is in a state somehow blaming labour for that is really bizarre. Yes taxes have gone up and the country is still in a state, which isn't going to be hugely popular, but be realistic in that criticism.

Well she obviously felt she had to.

Her argument is that the bill for the welfare reform was covered by other tax changes. There was then a bed to create more fiscal headroom so had to make further read changes to create that.

I'm not saying it's prudent or arguing it's merits as a policy. I'd rather they stopped holding tax bands and of course it's increasing tax. I'm just not sure it technically beaches the manifesto. My argument was very very specific.

Honestly shocked how easily so many of you fall for this nonsense. There was money to be saved and she saved it. Separately to the welfare spending. As that was offset by tax changes already within the budget.

Economy doing better than the opposition thought somehow equals the chancellor being a hopeless liar eh? What nonsense

I'm not. I'm clearly saying labour have done nothing wrong in terms of pre budget discussions etc. I'm not discussing the policy at all. And the only mention I make of the Tories is pointing out potential hypocrisy.

That's not the complaint though. Absolutely fine to take that opinion. But that's not what I'm on about

That's not the complaint is it.

If she'd given herself zero additional headroom it would have been the smallest headroom of all time and the Tory press would have battered her for 'risking bankruptcy' or some such nonsense. Don't lower yourself to pretending there's anything even slightly wrong with her approach as there's not been at all. You're just repeating Tory nonsense. And there was no manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people. There was an explicit promise not to raise VAT, income tax or NI on working people. And that haven't. Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

Tory press still going full steam ahead attempting to smear Rachel reeves as a liar simply because the public finances are better than they thought. Such absolute tosh. Actually amusing watching them attempt to turn a big positive into a weird negative.

I'm assuming we know we're not going up at this point. May be proven completely wrong but if he's not gone so far maybe he's not going unless we really look like relegation fodder. MON is 73 and barely managed in years.

More on board with this. Need to threaten developers. Use it or lose it.

Also because they kept local shops etc rather than Americanising their cities and driving culture. We have too many cars but lots of bits of the country aren't like the Midlands. Nobody is arguing to pave over the entire country. Just pointing out wholly city or apartment living is a ridiculous concept.