#rachel reeves budget

[bewithus4u]

Rachel Reeves: The Vanguard of UK's Economic Diplomacy with China

Rachel Reeves, the UK Finance Minister, is set to embark on a significant diplomatic mission to China in January 2024. This visit is poised to revive regular economic talks between the two nations and strengthen bilateral relations. With the Bank of England Governor joining her on this key visit, the trip is expected to have far-reaching implications for the UK’s economic strategy and…

[towerblockers]

Hotelier and Pub Owner Slams Rachel Reeves's Budget, Citing Mounting Costs and Struggling Businesses

Hotelier and Pub Owner Reveals Five Years Without Profit Amid Rising Costs, Slams Rachel Reeves’s Budget Nick Evans, who runs three hospitality businesses, has revealed that despite five years of hard work, he’s yet to see a profit. With mounting costs and new tax changes under Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s Budget, Evans is facing an increasingly difficult business environment. As a hotelier and…

[tamilethnicity]

Ministers fear Rachel Reeves is about to ditch Labour manifesto promises

Chancellor Rachel Reeves at PMQs (Image: Daily Express) It was an image that not only illustrated the intense pressure on Rachel Reeves but the bleak state of the UK economy. The besieged Chancellor, sitting ashen-faced with heavy bags under her eyes, was being barracked by opposition MPs during the first PMQs of 2025. Outside the Commons bear pit, markets were in meltdown, the pound was…

[cynicalclassicist]

When you see these in Guardian politics feed updates, you know that it's going to be a busy day.

[chriswhodrawsstuff]

The real black hole.

I’m feeling a bit shell shocked today. The idiots went and did it. The neoliberal iteration of the Labour party actually kept the Tories’ plans for ‘welfare reforms’ and for reform, read ‘cuts’. The gist of it is that those with mental health issues are going to be exposed to more harm than ever under this government and, let’s face, people are going to die because of them. For months we have…

[creativemedianews]

PM did not rule out an NI increase for employers

[dostoyevsky-official]

this a view of someone who's ignored european developments since 2007, opting for a rosy, outdated view of european politics, i.e. the exact type of american committing the exact type of mistake i'm warning about.

to address this point by point: not only has inflation been a global issue, but the US has consistently enjoyed the lowest inflation of any developed economy. american CPI has remained below the british, polish, and eurozone average numbers. european economies have to deal with fallout from the russian invasion of ukraine that the us can ignore: notably, in energy prices, as the US became self-sufficient in energy (and never imported any from russia to begin with, something squeezing the german economy). america is also not hosting millions of ukrainian refugees.

when discussing european instutions—and "europe" in general—one has to be more specific. do you mean the overarching institutions of the EU, criticized for a democratic deficit that many have pinpointed as one source for euro-skepticism and the rise of the far right? the EU Council, widely ignored and headed by charles michel, an incompetent, blatant nepobaby appointment whom everyone grinds their teeth over? the EU parliament, recently filled with a fresh batch of far-right hooligans, which functions more or less as a rubber stamp for the commission? the EU commission itself, headed by VdL, the latest in a string of failed local politician commissioners (who remembers the alcoholic swindler juncker?) masquerading as technocrats? the ECB, which smothers the monetary (and through the maastricht criteria, the fiscal) policy of eurozone members, thereby fueling resentment, far-right movements, and economic disparity? and all of this held hostage by the veto of one orban or fico, —or the german supreme court, when it decides it's had enough with public investment. those institutions, which remain so opaque that even educated americans—and europeans—aren't entirely aware of their function?

or do we mean the institutions of individual countries, ranging from undemocratic autocracies like hungary to the fief of the jupiter king, who called elections in june, lost them, refused to nominate a prime minister from the winning coalition, didn't name any for over a month, and then appointed a rightwing politician from a party that scored dead last, sidestepping his own centrist party? the UK, where sir keir is handing out five years in jail time to climate protesters, raising tuition fees, relying on private investment companies, and through rachel reeves' plan to fix the alleged budget hole left by hunt before further investment, again enacting austerity? this is all front-page headline news from the last half year.

european countries indeed have cheaper healthcare costs, better pensions, and other public goods that the united states does not. when considering "quality of life," remember, however, that most european countries have unemployment rates considered astronomic in america, especially for under-35s:

to focus again and again on european social democracy is to ignore that it has been steadily eroded since the end of the cold war and especially since the great recession by neoliberal political forces that crush the left and open the door for the far right. in the most blatant example, beside's macron's legislative politricks, the IMF-ECB-EC troika cut off euro cash liquidity flow to greece when syriza was trying to undo austerity under varoufakis. the greek collapse consigned a generation to economic failure, killed seniors, and curtailed possibilities for the youth. this erosion happened even in the nordic model, long imagined by americans as nothing short of a utopia:

In part due to the scrapping of wealth and inheritance taxes and a lower corporate tax than both the U.S. and European averages, Sweden has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world today: on a level with Bahrain and Oman, and worse than the United States. Perhaps most dispiriting for Sanders, Sweden also now hosts the highest proportion of billionaires per capita in the world. Many of the country’s trademark social services are now provided by private firms. Its private schools even benefit from the same level of state subsidy as public schools—a voucher system far more radical than anything in the United States and that Democratic politicians would be crucified for advocating. Both here and there, right-leaning commentators in 2020 decried Sanders’s portrait as little more than what Johan Norberg, Swedish author of The Capitalist Manifesto, has called a 1970s “pipedream.” On this, Swedish observers on the left gloomily agree: despite official rhetoric, the “Nordic welfare model” is now more nostalgic myth than reality. (x)

to problematize further, there's an unadressed first world perspective: who's getting the good quality of life, why are the main economies of the EU so wealthy, and how does the EU continue to enrich itself? there are certainly many living outdoors today, drowning in the mediterranean, or dying of exposure in białowieża. fortress europe is a crime against humanity—and it doesn't beat back the far right. it weakens civic and human rights, undermines legal oversight, and criminalizes humanitarian engagement, allowing an authoritarian creep.

you shouldn't understand the political and the historical as a snapshot in time, but as a moving train. this is the state of europe today. all of the above is necessarily a simplification and an abbreviation, but there's a trajectory you can begin to trace out: given all of the above, where do you think europe is headed?

[darkmaga-returns]

By Rodney Atkinson Freenations

December 24, 2024

Britain’s new Labour Government has managed in six short months to reduce an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7 group of leading economies to falls of -0.1% in both September and October with no growth in the large services sector as fearful consumers reduced spending and business paused investment. With manufacturing and construction declining at a pace of 0.6% and 0.4% respectively in October, annual inflation has risen to 2.6% and the 10 year government bond interest rate has risen from 3.8% to 4.6% – a massive vote of no confidence in Government debt management.

The largesse distributed by Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to doctors, train drivers and the nationalised sickness service (NHS – £25 billion extra) led to a budget in which the State raised taxes by a staggering £40 billion, increased the minimum wage, increased already crippling business rates and increased employers’ national insurance payments for each worker.

[spectroscopic-gayety]

All my pessimistic sonic 3 theories before it launches so I can be dodgeballed:

1. They will get black doom into it. He will be either heavily referenced or overtly mentioned. They will really. Really. Really. Want to milk that cow.

2. They will not give shadow a single gun in this movie (because they’re cowards).

3. Keanu Reeves will not once sound like a teenage boy.

4. Shadow moves in with Rachel and Jojo at the end. Half of tumblr will try to explain how adopted cousins “isn’t incest”.

5. They’ll tease silver at the end, his voice actor will be his original because they do not have the budget (pls god let him have the snap cube voice I’m begging it’d be so funny/kill all tension)

6. There will not be a single female mobian in these films. When the series eventually ends the last film will be the one to finally tease Amy.

Please Paramount prove me wrong. I’m just going into this with expectations low in hopes it’ll be better.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Four years on from the pandemic and long Covid’s inequalities have only worsened - Published Nov 27, 2024

By Mohamed Ali

Fatigue, cognitive difficulties, and breathlessness are still a daily reality for many. It is particularly acute in poorer communities

From as early as 2020, it was clear that the Covid pandemic was not the great equaliser it was initially portrayed to be.

Instead, it exposed and exacerbated entrenched inequalities, with those in poorer communities, frontline workers, and individuals with existing health conditions bearing the brunt of the crisis.

Four years later, as we grapple with the ongoing shadow of long Covid, those same groups continue to suffer disproportionately.

The lingering effects of the pandemic Long Covid, known as post-Covid-19 syndrome, is a condition where people continue to experience symptoms weeks or months after recovering from the initial infection.

While many recover fully from Covid-19, others find themselves facing a wide range of ongoing health problems that can affect their daily life. These symptoms can include extreme fatigue, difficulty thinking clearly or “brain fog”, shortness of breath, chest pain, and muscle or joint aches.

What makes Long Covid particularly challenging is that it doesn’t just affect those who were severely ill; even people with mild or asymptomatic infections can develop it.

Research indicates that approximately 10 per cent of people infected with Covid-19 may experience Long Covid, with estimates suggesting that at least 65 million individuals worldwide are affected, and this continues to increase annually.

Scientists believe Long Covid is linked to the body’s prolonged response to the virus, which can impact multiple organs and systems. As researchers work to understand this complex condition, its effects on millions worldwide highlight the importance of recognising Long Covid as a serious and legitimate health issue.

Despite promises of reform, the Labour government’s plans to tackle long Covid have raised as many questions as answers.

Can their policies repair a healthcare system battered by years of underfunding, or will they fall short for those most in need?

As we examine the government’s response, the urgency of addressing this crisis becomes clear – but so too does the need for bolder action.

The unequal burden of long Covid By March 2023, 1.9 million people in the UK were living with long Covid, with over a million enduring symptoms for more than a year. Fatigue, cognitive difficulties, and shortness of breath have become the daily reality for many.

But this reality is even harsher for poorer communities, where long Covid has reinforced and deepened existing inequalities.

These are the same communities that bore the brunt of the initial waves of Covid-19.

Overcrowded housing, limited access to healthcare, and a reliance on public-facing jobs meant higher exposure and worse outcomes.

Now, with long Covid, these structural inequalities have been magnified further.

Many cannot afford to stop working despite debilitating symptoms, leaving them trapped in a cycle of poor health and economic instability.

Are the government’s plans enough? In 2024, the Labour government inherited a healthcare system under strain, with the added weight of long Covid exacerbating the crisis.

While it has pledged to tackle the systemic failures exposed during the pandemic, the effectiveness of its response remains uncertain.

The NHS received a £25.6 billion funding boost in Rachel Reeves’ first budget, but after adjusting for inflation and demographic pressures, real growth is just 1.7 per cent.

This modest increase must cover rising demands, workforce pay pressures, and the productivity challenges of a post-pandemic health service.

While the previous government allocated £314 million to long Covid services, including over 100 specialist clinics, there is no clarity on how Labour intends to sustain or expand these services.

In October 2024, Andrew Gwynne MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care, highlighted the government’s £58 million investment in UK research to better understand long Covid.

This funding aims to improve diagnosis, explore the disease’s mechanisms, and evaluate treatments.

However, these steps, while welcome, fail to fully address the scale of need, especially as existing clinics remain concentrated in urban centres, limiting access for rural and underserved populations.

The absence of earmarked funds for long Covid in the latest budget raises important questions about future priorities.

The government’s focus on immediate wins, such as surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners, may overshadow the need to address systemic issues like equitable access to long Covid services and sustainable funding for chronic illness care.

Labour’s rhetoric about addressing health inequalities is promising, but the lack of concrete details on how these plans will be implemented is troubling. It’s unclear how they intend to ensure that funding reaches the areas most in need or that the clinics will provide consistent, high-quality care.

Economic and workplace realities The proposed Employment Rights Bill, introduced by Labour, aims to strengthen workplace protections with reforms such as day one unfair dismissal rights, universal sick pay, and stricter regulations on zero-hours contracts.

While these measures represent progress, they fail to address the specific challenges faced by workers with long Covid.

For the 1.2 million affected, including 346,000 who are severely limited in their daily lives, symptoms such as fatigue and cognitive impairment make maintaining employment an ongoing struggle.

The bill still lacks provisions to hold employers accountable for providing reasonable accommodations for workers managing long-term health conditions, leaving a critical gap in support.

Without targeted measures, such as explicit protections for those with long Covid or enforcement mechanisms to ensure employers comply, these reforms risk being broad strokes that fail to reach the workers most in need. The success of the bill will ultimately depend on its implementation and whether it can truly deliver meaningful change for vulnerable workers.

The Labour government’s proposals to expand sick pay and enforce flexible working arrangements are steps in the right direction, but they feel half-hearted.

The stark reality is that workers in low-wage sectors, where long Covid is most prevalent, are the least likely to benefit from these reforms. Employers in these industries often resist flexibility, and without stronger enforcement mechanisms, many workers will remain unprotected.

For women, who are slightly more likely than men to experience long Covid, the challenges are even greater.

Women are overrepresented in caregiving roles and part-time work, and the combination of long Covid symptoms and limited workplace support leaves them vulnerable to economic hardship.

The government’s plans fail to adequately account for these gendered impacts, leaving a significant gap in their strategy.

The silent crisis in schools For children and young people, long Covid has disrupted, often leaving them unable to attend school consistently or keep up with their peers.

For students in lower-income families, where access to resources for remote learning is limited, these challenges are even more severe.

Recent research highlights the isolating and stressful impact of school absences for young people with long Covid, who are eager to return to their classrooms and connect with peers.

While the study, which involved a small sample of children, parents, and caregivers, provides valuable insights, it lacked the ability to capture experiences across diverse age groups, ethnicities, and social classes.

Labour has promised to provide additional funding to schools to train teachers in recognising and supporting students with long Covid. While this is a start, it does little to address the structural issues driving educational inequity.

Without targeted investment in schools in deprived areas, the long-term educational consequences for children with long Covid risk widening the attainment gap even further.

A healthcare system on its knees The NHS, already on its knees after years of austerity and the pandemic, has been further weakened by long Covid.

Healthcare workers, many of whom are suffering from long Covid themselves are stretched to breaking point. Staff shortages, burnout, and inadequate mental health support mean that even as the Labour government promises reform, the reality on the ground remains bleak.

Labour’s plans to rebuild the NHS, including addressing staffing shortfalls and improving working conditions, are essential. But the scale of the challenge is daunting. Without a radical shift in how healthcare is funded and managed, the NHS risks being unable to cope with the ongoing demands of long Covid, let alone future crises.

Amidst these shortcomings, advocacy groups like Long Covid SOS and Long Covid Support have filled the gaps left by government inaction. These organisations have not only provided resources and support for those affected but have also been critical in shaping public awareness and policy discussions around long Covid.

The Labour government has pledged to engage with these groups to ensure that lived experiences inform policy decisions. While this is encouraging, the onus remains on the government to turn these conversations into meaningful action. Advocacy groups can only do so much; systemic change requires leadership from the top.

Long Covid is not just a health crisis, it is a crisis of inequality. The Labour government’s promises, while well intentioned, risk falling into the same traps as their predecessors: underfunding, slow implementation, and failure to prioritise the most vulnerable. Words alone will not address the entrenched disparities that have further been exacerbated by the pandemic.

What is needed is bold, decisive action. Long Covid clinics must be expanded to reach rural and underserved areas. Funding for schools and workplaces must reflect the scale of the problem, and enforcement mechanisms must ensure that protections for workers are not merely optional. Above all, the government must deliver on its promise to put equity at the heart of its response.

For now, long Covid remains a stark reminder of how inequality shapes health outcomes in the UK. Addressing it is not just a matter of policy it is a moral imperative. Whether Labour can rise to this challenge remains to be seen, but time is running out for those who can least afford to wait.

[creativemedianews]

Reeves' double Budget blow: Gilt yields hit post-election high as UK business confidence falls

[mariacallous]

The United Kingdom, as it was in the years after Brexit, is caught between the lure of the United States and the gravitational pull of Europe. For now, Britain is hoping that the special relationship with Washington—and a few early white flags—will be enough to shield it from the worst of the Trump administration’s erratic trade and foreign-policy moves.

But there are two big differences between this and the years after Britain’s departure from the European Union, when London kept chasing after a never-to-be-had trade deal with Washington.

First, the United States in President Donald Trump’s second term is no longer the reliable security partner that it had been for 85 years, driving the United Kingdom closer to Europe on matters of defense and security for Ukraine, if not yet on trade (or fish). And second, the U.K.’s Labour Party government came into office last summer with no clear vision of its relationship to either Europe or the United States, making it less of a bridge between them than a potential target for both.

The question is coming to a head because the United Kingdom, like the European Union and nearly every other country, is warily eyeing the Trump administration’s expected announcement on April 2 of sweeping new tariffs, Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day.”

The European Union’s trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, met with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Tuesday. (No word yet on how that meeting went.)

Rather than threatening retaliation, as Brussels has promised though not yet finalized, Britain is considering a preemptive surrender to mollify Trump and secure a rare carve-out from what Trump previously vowed would be near-universal tariffs on all U.S. trading partners.

Specifically, U.K. government officials are mulling the idea of reducing or scrapping the Digital Services Tax, a levy on Big Tech firms that brings in close about 800 million pounds (roughly $1.03 billion) a year in desperately needed tax revenue but also generates white heat among U.S. technology executives, many of whom bristle at the notion that other countries could tax or regulate businesses operating in their jurisdictions.

U.K. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said that “nothing is off the table,” including apparently a waiving of the digital tax, in prospective talks with the United States.

“The United Kingdom has no guiding principles” regarding either trade policy or its approach to Europe or the United States “and is in danger of getting pushed around by both,” said David Henig, the director of the U.K. Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy, a think tank.

What is clear, Henig said—at a time when the U.K. government is slashing services and welfare, strip-mining its aid budget, and spending more on defense to appease Trump—is that giving foreign tech billionaires a big tax break would be, at the very least, politically courageous.

On Wednesday, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves gave a preview of the government’s efforts to square a fiscal circle that is being shrunk by higher interest payments, more spending on defense, and big welfare cuts that are delivering smaller savings than expected, which will mean even more welfare cuts to come. 

Blowing a nearly 1 billion pound hole—the expected annual revenue by the end of this decade from the digital tax—in that already tighter budget, even if it bought Britain immunity from some of Trump’s tariffs, would be costly enough. But it’s not even clear that such a move would appease Trump and shield the United Kingdom from the avalanche of tariffs that might arrive next week. 

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s flattery of Trump and seemingly good relationship with him did not shield the United Kingdom from the steel and aluminum tariffs that went into effect earlier this month. In the past, Trump has said that the global tariffs would apply to all countries, but he has recently amended that, admitting that he may give an exception to “a lot” of countries.

If the size and shape of a country’s trade balance with Washington is any metric to judge its vulnerability to the next round of tariffs—and countries with a trade surplus with the United States are absolutely in Trump’s crosshairs—then there are roughly 70 billion reasons for Britain to be nervous.

Then again, it’s not clear what tariffs might actually come next week, what or whom they might target, or even what legal authority they might rely on. (Don’t forget the twice-announced, once-paused tariffs on Canada and Mexico, which are slated to be on again starting next week.)

In recent days, administration officials have floated all sorts of variations on what began as a proposal for “reciprocal” tariffs to match duties wielded by trading partners, meant to redress decades of alleged unfair trading conditions for the world’s largest economy. The initial idea of matching all tariffs for all countries for all products was dismissed as impossible, since that would require millions of individual tariff adjustments. 

Among the latest possibilities now being trotted out are universal tariffs with some countries exempted, or with some key sectors such as autos or semiconductors excluded, or perhaps with both country exclusions and sector exceptions, or perhaps separate automotive tariffs, or maybe tariffs on a more narrowly targeted group of countries that are, in Washington’s eyes, the worst offenders on trade. 

Another aspect that’s still in doubt is whether the administration will limit its attempts at “reciprocity” regarding tariffs to other countries’ tariff rates, or if it will, as previously suggested, take a more expansive view of trade abuses to include nontariff barriers, standards and regulations, and even local tax rules. The Trump administration has seriously entertained including Europe’s value-added tax—a sales tax—as part of its tariff calculations, even though those taxes are paid by Europeans as well and don’t have any impact on trade.

Also still uncertain are the exact legal authorities that the administration might invoke to levy the biggest tariffs since the starring role that they played in worsening the Great Depression. Options include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, obscure provisions of a 1974 trade law, or even more obscure provisions of a 1930 trade law. 

Whether the United Kingdom can parlay its historic special relationship with the United States into special treatment from Trump’s America is one still-open question. But whatever happens, mollifying moves toward Washington—including soothing noises from British defense officials in the wake of Trump officials’ Signalgate insults to Europe—only deepen distrust with Brussels, which is still reeling more than eight years after Britain’s shock decision to depart from one of the world’s biggest economic blocs.

“The U.K. says it wants to rebuild ties with the EU, and every time it thinks to do things with the U.S., a few more people in Brussels get suspicious, even while the EU knows it needs the U.K. for its security,” Henig said. “It does nothing to ease the mutual distrust.”

[thoughtlessarse]

As the chancellor ekes out every last billion this week, it’s worth stepping back and remembering one key reason why Britain fares worse than its neighbours: Brexit. On Monday, MPs debated whether to rejoin the EU following the success of a public petition that gained 134,000 signatures. Don’t hold your breath. The government replied by quoting its not-until-hell-freezes-over manifesto pledge: “there will be no return to EU membership”. But the global Trumpquake has shaken all certainties, upended all that seemed solid. The European defence emergency has made talk of Brexit and its future less taboo on both sides of the Channel. Close observers note the ice breaking. “Things are moving in the right direction,” says Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform (CER). Nonetheless, Labour is so paralysed by Brexit that despite its hunt for growth, it has said nothing about the monumental sums that leaving the EU have cost the economy. Estimates vary, but the CER sets our losses at 5% of GDP. That’s a vast sum: 1% of Britain’s GDP is worth £25.6bn. Goldman Sachs’s calculations are similar. Researchers at the London School of Economics found that the UK lost £27bn in exports to the EU in the first two years; the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) reckons Britain has seen a 15% reduction in trade. Last week Policy Exchange, a pro-Brexit thinktank, tried to salvage some shred of Brexit’s reputation, but to no avail. Sifting through the statistics, even it couldn’t find any Brexit advantages. Try as it might to produce a positive narrative, its report Less Than Meets the Eye could only attempt to limit the damage. It concluded that the OBR’s 15% trade reduction was “greatly exaggerated – and that the real impact is only a small fraction of what has been assumed”.

continue reading