A short Twitter thread from me so far this morning as, unusually for me these days, I am heading to London this morning to be on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 at lunchtime, discussing the Autumn Statement as the Chancellor sits down. That will probably be at 12.30. Other radio slots then follow. At least one will happen before then, on BBC Radio Sheffield. The following reflects some of the things I might say:
I might also add this separate thought:
The chance that anything Hunt says today will necessarily get approval from the Commons seems to be quite low to me: the idea that Sunak has a big enough working majority to deliver a tough budget is one of the interesting claims of the day, about which I am not wholly convinced. However, as this is only a statement there is no vote. The test will not come yet, but the possibility that it will is high.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The article in The Guardian today, written by James Meadway director of the Progressive Economy Forum hits the nail on the head. Perhaps you should include some of it in your commentary today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/17/tories-fiscal-black-hole-statistical-fiction-spending-tax
“Economic forecasting is there to make astrology look good.” – JK Galbraith
I have reasons for disagreeing with Meadway, but will make similar points in my own way
If any Tory MPs can’t make the connection you mention between higher taxes and worse public services, then they are too thick to be in office. To suggest any other kind of job they may be capable of doing would be an insult to those doing those jobs, usually to much good effect. I could suggest middle management in a hedge fund, but that might be more remunerative than they deserve.
What about the trade deal that they used to say they wanted with the US? They haven’t said much about that lately. Because they haven’t mentioned it, though, doesn’t mean that they haven’t been thinking about it.
Thank you again Richard for your insight.
I’m sharing your info as widely as possible as people are so ill informed thanks to MSM.
Helping to simply and breakdown the issues as you do is invaluable.
Good luck with Jeremy Vine – give them hell.
Unless there are tax changes that require legislation then surely a vote is unlikely? And some might be by Statutory Instrument that do not need votes rather than a Finance Bill
The fight will come in next year’s Finance Bill
Today in Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/17/tories-fiscal-black-hole-statistical-fiction-spending-tax
Perhaps you can take the opportunity to remind Mark how the market (that omniscient, omnipotent locus of all good things) reacted to the Kwarteng budget just a few weeks ago: to quote from here (which has some other choice quotes from starry-eyed ideologues): https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/17/trussonomics-liz-truss-doomed-mini-budget-ideology-biggest-cheerleaders
“ ‘This isn’t a trickle-down budget, it’s a boost-up budget’ – Mark Littlewood, the Institute of Economic Affairs
Littlewood, the director general of the free market thinktank the IEA, said he was looking forward to the “maxi” budget that would follow the mini-budget.
“It’s refreshing to hear a chancellor talk passionately about the importance of economic growth and supply-side reforms, rather than rattling off a string of state spending pledges and higher taxes,” he said on the day of the statement last month. “Only by bearing down on the amount of tax the state collects across the income spectrum, and reducing the regulatory burden, can we create better conditions for growth.” “
Perhaps you could also ask him about the founders of the IEA who acknowledged in the 1950s it was: “Imperative that we should give no indication in our literature that we are working to educate the Public along certain lines which might be interpreted as having a political bias. In other words, if we said openly that we were re-teaching the economics of the free-market, it might enable our enemies to question the charitableness of our motives.“ https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985
On my agenda – if I get the chance
How many years has there been net government spend? And how much has that benefited society overall in that time span?
If a government wants to cut spending then to me that means they want society to suffer.
Craig
Sorry, should have added that those two questions are rhetorical – Richard’s blogs on the subject answer the first one – and not me trolling 🙂
Craig
As I see it, increased taxes takes money out of the economy, causing it to shrink (anti-growth), and facilitates Austerity 2.0. Increased interest rates do the same. Reduced public services also do the same thing.
None of these help the National Debt/Public Surplus, suggesting that Austerity is the aim of the budget. If we follow the money, the motivation can only be to allow public services to fail, and to enable the privatisation of the NHS, and other public services for the benefit of private companies.
This is why train journey can cost more than a taxi, and private healthcare is unaffordable to most.