The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[brad465]

This is such a thick, mediocre, and unimaginative government. So pleased I didn't vote for them. More little dribbles of info coming out from the government now, minimum wage increase, blah blah blah. Infantile as per usual with our political culture.

Starmer no doubt having an especially long sleep tonight so all the new files download into his NPC brain before the Budget drops. 13% approval rating, hahahaha.

And then whoever follows them, going by recent history, will make us wish we still had Starmer in charge.

Sometimes I wonder if British tolerance is a serious cultural weakness of ours: it has allowed a long terminal decline and exploitation on the basis that all we will do is moan about it, not just regarding government behaviour, but the corporate world also (look at the state of our utilities for example). The French go a bit too far, but we could do with at least half of their willingness to smash stuff up when those in power overstep the mark.

 

[styles]

A really random one - they've announced (not a rumour) that dairy drinks with added sugar will be in scope of the sugar tax from 2028. It makes sense - why should dairy drinks be excluded other than potentially calcium benefit? It just seems odd that this is apparently so noteworthy it's made into the two things BBC News know for sure are happening in the budget (minimum wage, sugar tax on dairy).

Also the sugar tax threshold is being lowered. I wonder at what point manufacturers might just put their recipe back as there'll barely be any difference in taste between sugar+aspartame and aspartame.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ISA changes will irk if true- rumours of a cut in cash ISAs from £20k to £12k in the hope of bullying people into using stocks and shares ISAs. They come with risks though, and often platform or trading charges, that it seems most unfair to expose normal savers to.

"Normal savers" aren't putting a grand a month into savings. People with that sort of sum available are indeed better off putting some into investments or just paying the tax due.

How have we ended up with "normal" people defending the well off?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2025 ==

A really random one - they've announced (not a rumour) that dairy drinks with added sugar will be in scope of the sugar tax from 2028. It makes sense - why should dairy drinks be excluded other than potentially calcium benefit? It just seems odd that this is apparently so noteworthy it's made into the two things BBC News know for sure are happening in the budget (minimum wage, sugar tax on dairy).

Also the sugar tax threshold is being lowered. I wonder at what point manufacturers might just put their recipe back as there'll barely be any difference in taste between sugar+aspartame and aspartame.

Sadly it's only packaged drinks. I looked earlier and some Starbucks drinks are 500 calories ish, around three times a can of Coke - these should absolutely be included, possibly even at a higher rate. For comparison this is about the same number of calories as a Big Mac.

 

[brad465]

"Normal savers" aren't putting a grand a month into savings. People with that sort of sum available are indeed better off putting some into investments or just paying the tax due.

How have we ended up with "normal" people defending the well off?

To paraphrase that infamous Devil quote: "The greatest trick the super-rich ever played, is convincing a critical mass of those they exploit to defend the exploitation."

As to how we've ended up with that, owning a critical mass of media output goes some way to how.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sadly it's only packaged drinks. I looked earlier and some Starbucks drinks are 500 calories ish, around three times a can of Coke - these should absolutely be included, possibly even at a higher rate. For comparison this is about the same number of calories as a Big Mac.

Is there a rationale why they don't include ready-made drinks? This also seems like an odd policy to me.

 

[styles]

Sadly it's only packaged drinks. I looked earlier and some Starbucks drinks are 500 calories ish, around three times a can of Coke - these should absolutely be included, possibly even at a higher rate. For comparison this is about the same number of calories as a Big Mac.

Oh yes this also frustrates me about the sugar tax. It's just so inconsistent. So I don't necessarily disagree with packaged dairy drinks being included, but that this is the number 2 item on BBC News' live coverage of the budget is a bit bonkers.

I actually am not sure I agree with the sugar tax, even though I supported it when it was brought in. I imagined most (not all) drinks would retain their current recipe, consumption would switch to lower/zero sugar drinks, and some funds would be raised for local sporting initiatives. Instead, the vast majority of recipes were changed so that 'full sugar' drinks were a mix of sugar and sweetener. The worst by far has to be Lucozade, which was reduced their sugar content by 64%, but like, they're literally an energy drink founded on glucose. It tastes awful now. I don't drink fizzy pop very often, and when I do I like it to taste sweet, not chemically. That means Coca-Cola (not Pepsi as they caved) and Irn-Bru 1901. Happy to admit I was wrong on this one - I want a lot of my original recipes back.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2025 ==

Is there a rationale why they don't include ready-made drinks? This also seems like an odd policy to me.

Anyone running one of these milkshake bars or dessert places would be hit is my guess, and also it's more difficult to enforce on small businesses. Only a guess though.

 

[JamieL]

"Normal savers" aren't putting a grand a month into savings. People with that sort of sum available are indeed better off putting some into investments or just paying the tax due.

How have we ended up with "normal" people defending the well off?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2025 ==



Sadly it's only packaged drinks. I looked earlier and some Starbucks drinks are 500 calories ish, around three times a can of Coke - these should absolutely be included, possibly even at a higher rate. For comparison this is about the same number of calories as a Big Mac.

The ISA Cash market is worth over £250billion so I think quite a few people are indeed investing in them. They are flexible and suit all types- families who may need the cash urgently, pensioners sustaining their pot and everyone in between. Government should leave well alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ISA Cash market is worth over £250billion so I think quite a few people are indeed investing in them. They are flexible and suit all types- families who may need the cash urgently, pensioners sustaining their pot and everyone in between.

Yes, lots of people are. But not to the tune of over a thousand pounds a month. Having a thousand pounds a month spare to save per person is in the domain of the upper middle class at least.

I therefore support this change. Tax breaks should be concentrated on the worse off. The better off can at least consider investing in business to bring economic growth instead of cash accounts or property, neither of which bring that benefit.

This is my exact point. I assume you neither can save £12K pa nor are likely to be able to - I certainly can't and I am well paid. Why defend the super rich who can?

 

[oldman]

The ISA changes will irk if true- rumours of a cut in cash ISAs from £20k to £12k in the hope of bullying people into using stocks and shares ISAs. They come with risks though, and often platform or trading charges, that it seems most unfair to expose normal savers to.

Do a lot of normal savers have more than £12k to save each year, on top of what they put into their pensions? And why shouldn't wealthy people pay tax on investment income?

Unsurprisingly:

The highest proportion of savers, around 46.2%, saved between £1 and £2,499. Source

 

[JamieL]

Tax breaks should be concentrated on the worse off.

A fast way to kill off any hope of economic growth. This budget will fast track poverty for all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A fast way to kill off any hope of economic growth. This budget will fast track poverty for all.

This is simply untrue. Squirrelling away money in cash savings accounts, like residential property, does absolutely nothing for economic growth. People with this sort of money should be nudged via the tax system to invest it in growing businesses, either directly or via a stocks and shares ISA, and that is precisely what this change would seek to do. They would bring more growth if they just went and spent it in shops, let alone the greater benefits of investing in growing business.

 

[AlterEgo]

A fast way to kill off any hope of economic growth. This budget will fast track poverty for all.

Having people save all their money in cash doesn't provide economic growth.

 

[JamieL]

Having people save all their money in cash doesn't provide economic growth.

It does though because that money is used by banks to fund the mortgage market. It also makes it harder to grow savings for a house deposit. This change will push up mortgage costs and flatten the housing market. A massive dampener on economic growth.

 

[AlterEgo]

It does though because that money is used by banks to fund the mortgage market. It also makes it harder to grow savings for a house deposit.

By how much? Who is shutting away over £12k a year for house deposits?

This change will push up mortgage costs and flatten the housing market. A massive dampener on economic growth.

What do you mean by flatten in this context?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does though because that money is used by banks to fund the mortgage market. It also makes it harder to grow savings for a house deposit. This change will push up mortgage costs and flatten the housing market. A massive dampener on economic growth.

Houses don't fund economic growth, which is one reason them being used as investments is bad. To bring economic growth you need to invest in business, which is what a stocks and shares ISA does, though you can of course also do it directly.

 

[ainsworth74]

Houses don't fund economic growth, which is one reason them being used as investments is bad.

Don't say things like that, you'll give the Telegraph and Daily Mail a heart attack!

 

[jfollows]

I think that any reduction in the annual cash ISA limit is politically self-destructive. Sure, lots of people don’t have £20,000 a year to salt away. But I think that many likely future Labour voters don’t trust the stock market and some of them make use of the cash ISA allowance.
Personally, I have all my investments in risky stocks, shares, etc and under an ISA wrapper where possible. So it won’t affect me. I don’t do cash ISAs.
But I know people who are terrified of the idea of investing in stocks and shares. They ring me up after a week and shriek that the value of their investment has gone down.
Maybe she doesn’t have a choice, but I think it’s the wrong thing to do. Many people will only save in cash, or not at all. Many of them are likely Labour voters. In ten years they won’t have any money because they didn’t save.
I voted Labour in the last two elections but am unlikely to do so in the next one. They should have campaigned on the basis of increasing taxes to improve public services, not this nonsense about not increasing taxes and changing nothing.

 

[styles]

I think that any reduction in the annual cash ISA limit is politically self-destructive. Sure, lots of people don’t have £20,000 a year to salt away. But I think that many likely future Labour voters don’t trust the stock market and some of them make use of the cash ISA allowance.
Personally, I have all my investments in risky stocks, share, etc and under an ISA wrapper where possible. So it won’t affect me. I don’t do cash ISAs.
But I know people who are terrified of the idea of investing in stocks and shares. They ring me up after a week and shriek that the value of their investment has gone down.
Maybe she doesn’t have a choice, but I think it’s the wrong thing to do. Many people will only save in cash, or not at all. Many of them are likely Labour voters. In ten years they won’t have any money because they didn’t save.

I was against the idea when the rumoured limit would've been something like £4k, but actually I think £12k is a fine limit for it. It's a significant tax break on people who can afford to save £1k/month which is really a minority. The median annual input into an ISA is currently £1347. I would be affected by the £20k->£12k drop but even I'd agree with it. Also anyone investing >£1k/month ought to be able to work out that they can invest in cash assets in a S&S ISA.

 

[jfollows]

I was against the idea when the rumoured limit would've been something like £4k, but actually I think £12k is a fine limit for it. It's a significant tax break on people who can afford to save £1k/month which is really a minority. The median annual input into an ISA is currently £1347. I would be affected by the £20k->£12k drop but even I'd agree with it. Also anyone investing >£1k/month ought to be able to work out that they can invest in cash assets in a S&S ISA.

Yes, that’s fair.
If they abolished it altogether it wouldn’t affect me, I hate cash ISAs, but that’s me. I’m more against the principle (of reducing the limit) than the practice.
But it won’t make people invest in the stock market more than they would have done.

I also hate the way this budget has had its policies determined by floating ideas in advance.

 

[Magdalia]

"Normal savers" aren't putting a grand a month into savings. People with that sort of sum available are indeed better off putting some into investments or just paying the tax due.

How have we ended up with "normal" people defending the well off?

A bit of history on cash ISAs. They started in 1999 as a reform of the previous Tax Exempt Special Savings Accounts (TESSAs).

Until 2007/08 the upper limit was £3k. Two increases then took the limit up to £5.1k in 2010/11 then for a few years the upper limit was raised annually in line with RPI, which took the limit up to £5940. The 2 big increases were to £15k in 2014/15 and 20k in 2017/18. If the RPI link had been retained the limit would now be somewhere just under £10k, depending on the exact spec of the calculation (which was complicated, each annual increase had to be a multiple of £120 so as not to screw up monthly subscriptions).

I was against the idea when the rumoured limit would've been something like £4k, but actually I think £12k is a fine limit for it.

If the upper limit is reduced to £12k, then it will still be very generous in comparison to years before 2014.

Anyone saving their maximum allowance since 1999 has now been able to invest more than £250k in cash ISAs tax free, more than £200k of which has been since 2014.

The big upper limit since 2014/15 has been a blatant tax break for the rich. In particular it has enabled them to shelter inheritances and the proceeds of capital gains from income tax, by feeding the full £20k allowance into ISAs every year.

It does though because that money is used by banks to fund the mortgage market. It also makes it harder to grow savings for a house deposit. This change will push up mortgage costs and flatten the housing market. A massive dampener on economic growth.

And now a bit of economics. An important effect of the high ISA allowance is that it provides cheap finance to banks and building societies. This helps to keep mortgage interest rates down, but that mainly feeds through into higher house prices not economic growth. The higher house prices then benefit the next round of inheritances and so the vicious circle takes another turn.

The full story of the UK's dysfunctional housing market and how it hinders economic growth would take much longer.

 

[styles]

But it won’t make people invest in the stock market more than they would have done.

Yeah I think I've said up-thread but I expect people affected by this who don't currently invest in non-cash assets will just open a high interest non-ISA cash savings account and use up their Personal Savings Allowance.

I also hate the way this budget has had its policies determined by floating ideas in advance.

Yeah this has wound me up to no end. And apparently the Bank of England and the British Chamber of Commerce and (looking at market indices) many of our markets. It's a ridiculous way to do things and in my view shows a lack of backbone both from the PM and the chancellor.

 

[AlterEgo]

I also hate the way this budget has had its policies determined by floating ideas in advance.

This is how the country is always governed.

 

[styles]

This is how the country is always governed.

To an extent. But this budget has been a particularly egregious example of 'putting the feelers out' with a dozen significant policies floated months in advance, then u-turns floated weeks later, then silence. There's a complete lack of confidence in UK markets right now and it's because of uncertainty.

 

[ainsworth74]

To an extent. But this budget has been a particularly egregious example of 'putting the feelers out' with a dozen significant policies floated months in advance, then u-turns floated weeks later, then silence. There's a complete lack of confidence in UK markets right now and it's because of uncertainty.

It's just continuing the tradition that has seemed to develop over the last half decade or so. There's always been a bit of this but I feel like since around 2018/19 (ish) it got a lot worse with balloons and whatnot being trailed all over the place. I reckon it's in part since Westminster news media briefing circuit seemed to become "The News" during the Brexit Wars of 2017 - 2019. I noticed a year or so ago that all news coverage of was always in the lens of what it meant for the Government rather than anything to do with whether a policy was a good idea or not, or what effects a policy might have.

Obviously that's always been the case to a certain extent. But it feels like anything that is announced now is always framed in terms of what it means for the Prime Minister, whether it might threaten a rebellion from the backbenchers, what impact it might have on the polls, whether it can tell us something about the next election, etc etc. A story on the BBC News at 10 about a macro-economic policy won't be delivered by a journalist with an economics brief but by Chris Mason for instance.

Trailing every policy by balloon first seems to be part of and parcel of that. Along with government by focus group of course.

 

[rapmastaj]

I actually am not sure I agree with the sugar tax, even though I supported it when it was brought in. I imagined most (not all) drinks would retain their current recipe, consumption would switch to lower/zero sugar drinks, and some funds would be raised for local sporting initiatives. Instead, the vast majority of recipes were changed so that 'full sugar' drinks were a mix of sugar and sweetener.

Ugh, I strongly suspect artificial sweeteners are far more unhealthy than sugar. I want nothing to do with them, they should come under the sugar tax too.

 

[styles]

Ugh, I strongly suspect artificial sweeteners are far more unhealthy than sugar. I want nothing to do with them, they should come under the sugar tax too.

No, the evidence doesn't support this at all.

They taste worse, that's all.

 

[johntea]

I'm fourtunate enough to be able to put £20k a year in a Cash ISA, but I'm not too stressed about the budget and the fact they might change things, I've learnt over the years you can become a bit too addicted to savings and investments and whatever else so much you never actually spend and enjoy it!

My sister mentioned she is considering going down to a 4 day working week (with no additional hours) as the salary cut and tax reductions would pretty much balance out to what she earns doing a 5 day week

 

[styles]

My sister mentioned she is considering going down to a 4 day working week (with no additional hours) as the salary cut and tax reductions would pretty much balance out to what she earns doing a 5 day week

Don't want to go too off topic but I would gladly accept a 20% cut to work 4 days a week instead of 5.

Whenever I've had permie roles and there has been an option to buy additional annual leave days I've bought the full amount.

Forever baffled by people who get close to the end of the annual leave year and are told they need to spend them or lose them and end up reluctantly taking Fridays off for 2 months.

How can people, beyond the cost of living aspect, not want more leave?

 

[JamieL]

Houses don't fund economic growth...

Buying and selling of houses absolutely fuels growth. Most people have to save to build the deposit and get a mortgage to fund the purchase - benefiting the banking industry. The house needs to be sold - benefit estate agents, surveyors and solicitors. People need to buy new stuff for the house - benefiting retailers. People need to sustain in a job to earn the cash to pay the mortgage - benefiting the entire economy. Etc etc. The housing market is key to a prosperous economy.

Reeves seems determined to tax the life out of anything that will benefit the economy and instead fund a benefits bonanza.

 

[Halwynd]

Ugh, I strongly suspect artificial sweeteners are far more unhealthy than sugar. I want nothing to do with them, they should come under the sugar tax too.

I strongly suspect that too. Some scientists are now saying that some artificial sweetners, when consumed regularly, affect the gut microbiome and in the long term can cause bowel problems as well as glucose intolerance and inflamation. Quite a few years ago I noticed that whenever I ate or drank something which contained Sorbitol, I had stomach cramps and would be in the toilet in a flash.

Let's hope George Osborne and the food industry don't consign a future generation to health problems of a different kind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2025 ==

Reeves seems determined to tax the life out of anything that will benefit the economy and instead fund a benefits bonanza.

Won't be long before they introduce a Staying Indoors tax...