The Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch

[Magdalia]

there could have been a wealth tax (similar to the mansion tax) which wouldn't have impacted many ... and could have been covered by a tiny extra amount in council tax in one of the early years when it was frozen*).


* An even better option to freezing all council tax would have been to have frozen it for lower bands

Council Tax is an unfair form of taxation, being levied not on income, or overall assets, but on house value, and moreover, not house value now but when last assessed, ie 30 plus years ago.

For owner occupiers Council Tax is a rudimentary form of wealth tax, it is not an income tax. For renters it is more complicated, for them Council Tax most nearly resembles a tax on their rental expenditure.

Council Tax replaced Community Charge and was only intended to be a temporary solution.

Despite electioneering promises no party has grasped the mettle of Council Tax reform because they fear losing the votes of those who would pay more.

This is why it is still here, and with no property revaluation, more than 30 years later.

 

[Cdd89]

Like many things there was a lot of distance between what we did and what those nations did, there could have been a softer approach than we did without getting to the point that would have spooked the bond markers (or may have only slightly upset them, but within an acceptable amount).

While I don't disagree that we could have responded differently, a financial crisis is unique in that the market response is the crisis itself.

It would certainly be a bold government that tried an alternative response than "do what the City wants"; even if they would be proven right in the end, the government might not make it that far.

 

[The Ham]

While I don't disagree that we could have responded differently, a financial crisis is unique in that the market response is the crisis itself.

It would certainly be a bold government that tried an alternative response than "do what the City wants"; even if they would be proven right in the end, the government might not make it that far.

The question I was saying was, when thinking on the lines of "do what the City wants" did we do exactly what the City wanted and they wouldn't have accepted something a bit softer, or did the government go a lot further than the minimum that would have been acceptable to the City?

For example, if what Greece did was +5 and what we did was -5, could the city have been happy with (say) -2?

Of course one of the biggest cuts the government could have made to it's liabilities would have been to cut the government guarantees to the banking sector (at one point that was £1 trillion, however even in 2012 it was over double the entire NHS budget at £228 billion - the NHS budget was £106 billion).

Clearly if the City wanted cuts to the government liabilities regardless of the harm those cuts resulted in, then reducing that having support by 20% would have dwarfed most other cuts made.

Clearly such an argument isn't to suggest that is what should have happened, rather to push an argument towards an extreme example to make the point that the City didn't truly accept that all cuts to government liabilities would be a good thing and so may not have been requiring the level of cuts which were implemented.

As people have found, it's not easy to find waste which can be cut within government. The classic example which I've heard cited is that there's people who are employed who would have been fired in the public sector. The issue is, even if that accounts for 12% of all staff and you fire them all and they don't need replacing (as they are so wasteful that they do absolutely no work), then that's typically only going to save you less than 5% of the budget of a typical County Council.

 

[Harpo]

Despite electioneering promises no party has grasped the mettle of Council Tax reform because they fear losing the votes of those who would pay more.

Instead, local authorities have caused many other additional charged’s such as:
- Unadopted roads where LAs wriggle out of maintaining roads on brand new estates while collecting full council tax. (Residents pay property managers service charge in addition.)
- Garden bin collection fees
- In 2026, being granted permission to exceed 5% increases.

 

[Magdalia]

The question I was saying was, when thinking on the lines of "do what the City wants" did we do exactly what the City wanted and they wouldn't have accepted something a bit softer, or did the government go a lot further than the minimum that would have been acceptable to the City?

Within the overall fiscal position governments make political choices on which area of spending to protect and which to cut.

In the so called austerity years local government was starved of central government grant funding while at the same time restricted from raising Council Tax.

Meanwhile the two main pressures on local authority spending are social care and, more recently, special educational needs, both of which are demand driven.

Instead, local authorities have caused many other additional charged’s such as:
- Unadopted roads where LAs wriggle out of maintaining roads on brand new estates while collecting full council tax. (Residents pay property managers service charge in addition.)
- Garden bin collection fees

This is why local authorities have the incentive to be creative about ways of increasing income or reducing expenditure, such as the examples here.

 

[Cowley]

Unlocked for @styles to add to

 

[styles]

James Cleverly has quit the cabinet to run for London Mayor.

One of the 'big hitters' gone from the cabinet so soon (it doesn't appear he's formally left the cabinet yet, but said he is resigning, so it can't be far away) not good for the Tories.

That the London Mayor election is over a year and a half away, he must be planning on committing a lot of time to this campaign, and that's before the party's even selected him.

Cleverly quits shadow cabinet to run for London mayor

The capital is not set to vote on a new mayor until 2028.

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MP Sir James Cleverly has said he is resigning from the shadow cabinet to run for London mayor.

"I am putting myself forward to be the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, because our capital needs more than an administrator," he wrote in the Times, external.

Sir James said he has told Tory leader Kemi Badenoch he is stepping down as shadow housing secretary, saying: "I must be free to speak about every aspect of London's future and concentrate fully on winning this race."

The capital is not set to vote on a new mayor until May 2028. Labour incumbent Sir Sadiq Khan is yet to confirm whether he will seek an unprecedented fourth term.

The Conservatives are yet to pick their candidate for the London mayoral race.

A source close to Badenoch said Cleverly "is a formidable politician and will out-campaign Khan".

Sir James, who was foreign secretary under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, wrote that he intended to make London a city to be proud of again.

"We must rebuild its reputation and make it, once again, the best place in the world to live, work, invest and build a business," he added.

A senior Conservative politician, Sir James has held a number of ministerial positions under three prime ministers - including roles as home secretary and education secretary.

The army reservist represented the Tories on the London Assembly before his election as MP for Braintree in 2015.

After rising through the backbenches, he unsuccessfully ran for Conservative party leader in 2024, losing out to Badenoch.

Reacting to Sir James's announcement, a source said Badenoch "really didn't want James to leave shadow cabinet", but believed "he will be a big asset in London".

Current London Mayor Sir Sadiq began his first term in 2016. Cleverly wrote that the capital has been "let down by Labour".

He accused Prime Minister Andy Burnham of treating London as a "cash cow: somewhere to tax, regulate, raid and blame".

Sir James said: "Londoners need homes they can afford to buy or rent. Entrepreneurs need to be able to start and grow businesses without being strangled by cost and regulation."

The last time Londoners voted for their mayor in May 2024, Sir Sadiq beat Conservative rival Susan Hall by more than 275,000 votes - representing a swing of 3.2% to Labour.

The mayor won nine of the 14 constituencies including two gains from the Tories, and gained 43.8% of the vote share.

Reform UK revealed its candidate for the May 2028 election in January when it announced Westminster City councillor Laila Cunningham would be standing.

Reacting on social media, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote the Conservatives are "done for", and said Cleverly "will not be the first Tory MP to give up any hope of winning their seat in Essex".

Cleverly has not resigned as an MP yet.

His announcement follows speculation in recent weeks that he would step down and launch a bid to become London's next mayor.

During his time at the London Assembly, Cleverly chaired the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and also worked for Boris Johnson while he was mayor of London.

As a bit of an aside, the fact that this thread went nearly 6 months without an update perhaps tells us a bit about the relevance of the Conservative Party in 2026!

 

[Bald Rick]

And I heard that Priti Patel has been reshuffled out…

 

[styles]

And I heard that Priti Patel has been reshuffled out…

I mean, I don't blame Badenoch for that one!

 

[SuspectUsual]

And I heard that Priti Patel has been reshuffled out…

And the insufferably pompous * Mel Stride


* I know, senior Tories, tautology

 

[Harpo]

And I heard that Priti Patel has been reshuffled out…

I’m surprised she didn’t follow Cruella and co but guess she’s too far to the right for Reform.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m surprised she didn’t follow Cruella and co but guess she’s too far to the right for Reform.

I met her a couple of times. We didn‘t get on.

 

[317 forever]

The August Bank Holiday seemed an unusual day to have a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle.

Admittedly it was as late as 31st, and Parliament was due to sit the following day.

Labour are going to keep reminding everyone that the new Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith was a supporter of (and reportedly helped write) Liz Truss's notorious mini-budget.

 

[MotCO]

The August Bank Holiday seemed an unusual day to have a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle.

Admittedly it was as late as 31st, and Parliament was due to sit the following day.

Labour are going to keep reminding everyone that the new Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith was a supporter of (and reportedly helped write) Liz Truss's notorious mini-budget.

The problem with the Truss budget was that it was launched on an unsuspecting financial sector, and they were spooked. Had she taken the time (which admittedly was limited) to warm up her audience and sell her ideas in advance, then the reaction to the budget would have been different. She also was light on detail as to where savings were going to be made, and the Bank of England had not warned her of the perilous state of Liability Driven Investments, which imploded as the gilt interest rates increased.

 

[Harpo]

The problem with the Truss budget was that it was launched on an unsuspecting financial sector, and they were spooked. Had she taken the time (which admittedly was limited) to warm up her audience and sell her ideas in advance, then the reaction to the budget would have been different. She also was light on detail as to where savings were going to be made, and the Bank of England had not warned her of the perilous state of Liability Driven Investments, which imploded as the gilt interest rates increased.

The Truss budget was probably one of the most spectacular demonstrations of the Peter principle seen in UK politics. So far.

 

[brad465]

The Truss budget was probably one of the most spectacular demonstrations of the Peter principle seen in UK politics. So far.

I was thinking more the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[MotCO]

The Truss budget was probably one of the most spectacular demonstrations of the Peter principle seen in UK politics. So far.

I was thinking more the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Can I give you Starmer?

 

[brad465]

Can I give you Starmer?

You can

 

[MotCO]

You can

To keep?

 

[styles]

The problem with the Truss budget was that it was launched on an unsuspecting financial sector, and they were spooked. Had she taken the time (which admittedly was limited) to warm up her audience and sell her ideas in advance, then the reaction to the budget would have been different. She also was light on detail as to where savings were going to be made, and the Bank of England had not warned her of the perilous state of Liability Driven Investments, which imploded as the gilt interest rates increased.

For sure the uncertainty was a problem.

But some of the policies were also just tone-deaf, like lifting the cap on bankers' bonuses. It's fine to hold this political belief, but it was a terrible time to pick that particular battle. The financial institutions didn't anticipate it, but also the public wouldn't support it, so it was a double whammy in terms of confidence in the government.

 

[Tracked]

Didn't help that Truss then disappeared for a few days, possibly hiding under the desk. The Local BBC News interviews she did upon resurfacing were quite entertaining ...

 

[Broucek]

For sure the uncertainty was a problem.

But some of the policies were also just tone-deaf, like lifting the cap on bankers' bonuses. It's fine to hold this political belief, but it was a terrible time to pick that particular battle. The financial institutions didn't anticipate it, but also the public wouldn't support it, so it was a double whammy in terms of confidence in the government.

Yes, the lack of consultation was a problem. And any government seeking to reduce tax on the higher paid (which CAN have a positive economic impact) would surely start with the bonkers £100k "trap".... Which kind of reinforces a lack of deep thought about the issue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem with the Truss budget was that it was launched on an unsuspecting financial sector, and they were spooked. Had she taken the time (which admittedly was limited) to warm up her audience and sell her ideas in advance, then the reaction to the budget would have been different.

I don't think it would have been. Truss' plan was, essentially, to borrow money to fund tax breaks for the most wealthy people. It was the height of Tufton Street insanity and even the financial sector could see it was the height of Tufton Street insanity. She had no plans for how to repay the additional borrowing. The folly of her plans has been borne out since interest rates went back up from their historic and unsustainable low.

There is an argument to be had that reducing taxation increases productivity, so that whilst you get a smaller percentage of the cake, the overall cake is bigger. But that doesn't really work if you're simply proposing to borrow more money to cut those taxes with no plan as to how to repay the borrowing. And it definitely doesn't work when you're proposing to increase borrowing from a position where borrowing was already at record levels because of the Covid-era largesse.

Can I give you Starmer?

Starmer's issue isn't and wasn't a lack of competence, it was a lack of communication skills. He is and was competent, you don't get to have the legal career he has had if you're an idiot. The issue was that he simply incapable of communicating any of that to the general public.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Starmer's issue isn't and wasn't a lack of competence, it was a lack of communication skills. He is and was competent, you don't get to have the legal career he has had if you're an idiot. The issue was that he simply incapable of communicating any of that to the general public.

Had Starmer been Labour leader in 1997, *if* they'd won the election (I know its a big if, as part of the Labour appeal back then was obviously Blair) he'd probably have been absolutely fine following John Major, just another bloke in a grey suit who was quietly reasonably competent

 

[styles]

Yes, the lack of consultation was a problem. And any government seeking to reduce tax on the higher paid (which CAN have a positive economic impact) would surely start with the bonkers £100k "trap".... Which kind of reinforces a lack of deep thought about the issue.

I'm sure I've written about the £100 tax trap before on here, but it is wild. It was however a Gordon Brown special, rather than a Conservative policy. I don't think the Conservatives would introduce such a policy actually, not just because they have more 6-figure earners, but I also think they might've snoused that it would just lead to more [legal] tax avoidance - pensions, EV company cars, etc. Rare that I would give the Conservatives this much credit but I really don't think they'd make the mistake Brown did on this one. If you want to raise taxes on higher earners, just raise them; don't try and hide it with quirks.

 

[317 forever]

Had Starmer been Labour leader in 1997, *if* they'd won the election (I know its a big if, as part of the Labour appeal back then was obviously Blair) he'd probably have been absolutely fine following John Major, just another bloke in a grey suit who was quietly reasonably competent

It is easy to forget that, in terms of getting Labour elected, Keir Starmer did more than Tony Blair.

Keir won Labour over 200 seats, compared to Tony fewer than 150.

The Conservatives lost around 240 seats in 2024, compared to only around 160 in 1997.

 

[Broucek]

Yes, but Blair had a plausible opponent

 

[brad465]

I'm sure I've written about the £100 tax trap before on here, but it is wild. It was however a Gordon Brown special, rather than a Conservative policy. I don't think the Conservatives would introduce such a policy actually, not just because they have more 6-figure earners, but I also think they might've snoused that it would just lead to more [legal] tax avoidance - pensions, EV company cars, etc. Rare that I would give the Conservatives this much credit but I really don't think they'd make the mistake Brown did on this one. If you want to raise taxes on higher earners, just raise them; don't try and hide it with quirks.

Funnily enough the FT had a piece yesterday about how Starmer looked at removing the £100k tax trap, but the OBR could not be convinced by the argument it would lead to more workers working more hours and bringing in a net increase in revenue as a result. This suggests the OBR needs serious reform about how it does forecasts. Brown also brought in the 50p tax rate at the same time, however Osborne managed to reduce that to 45p in 2013 - this would have been an ideal time to have taken out that tax trap also, but for whatever reason didn't.

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/16ff7ba5-dcbd-472f-8d7f-1e4afd101543

Sir Keir Starmer’s government looked at softening the £100,000 “tax trap” that can deter higher earners from taking on more hours, fearing the effective 60 per cent rate was hitting UK growth as more workers approach the threshold. Ministers in the previous administration asked officials to examine options to mitigate a marginal rate that has long been viewed as a dysfunction in the tax system by economists, according to two people familiar with the matter, amid concerns that workers were cutting hours to avoid the trap.

 

[styles]

Funnily enough the FT had a piece yesterday about how Starmer looked at removing the £100k tax trap, but the OBR could not be convinced by the argument it would lead to more workers working more hours and bringing in a net increase in revenue as a result. This suggests the OBR needs serious reform about how it does forecasts. Brown also brought in the 50p tax rate at the same time, however Osborne managed to reduce that to 45p in 2013 - this would have been an ideal time to have taken out that tax trap also, but for whatever reason didn't.

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/16ff7ba5-dcbd-472f-8d7f-1e4afd101543

I read that and was a bit baffled by it really. I would've thought the greater revenue would come from people whacking their pay into pensions and company cars to reduce their pay to under £100k, especially if they are people who currently benefit from the tax-free childcare which drops off a cliff at £100k. We must lose a significant amount of tax over that.

I don't think many people are avoiding working more hours to avoid the £100k trap; in fact I'm not sure there's that many people working hourly on that kind of gross income, and if they are they're likely invoicing hourly from a limited company and would have other ways of avoiding it anyway, like expensing their commute travel and lunches or giving themselves trivial gifts or maxing the annual social functions allowance, or even having their partner on as a shareholder. So of course the OBR's conclusion is that it wouldn't raise enough revenue via working extra hours.

 

[MotCO]

I don't think many people are avoiding working more hours to avoid the £100k trap; in fact I'm not sure there's that many people working hourly on that kind of gross income,

I think many senior doctors (GPs, Consultants and Senior Registrars) are approaching or over the £100,000 limot once weekend and night working enhancements are included. This has led to some (many?) working part-time so has not to breach the £100,000 limit, which has a consequence on the availability of such doctors.