[Politics] The Labour Government

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I listened to Jonathan Reynolds this morning on Today.

He's the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and President of The Board of Trade.

His replies to questions over the Employer's NI increases made no sense, he seemed to have little understanding of the fact that NI increases will affect employment, so I thought I'd look up what type of businesses he's run.

The answer is appears is none, he left University, worked as a trainee solicitor though never completed his training. He then became a political assistant for an MP, then got elected as an MP.

The Tories were useless, and I had high hopes for Labour, but if this bloke is Secretary of State for Business, then we have no chance.

 

[Bozza]

I listened to Jonathan Reynolds this morning on Today.

He's the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and President of The Board of Trade.

His replies to questions over the Employer's NI increases made no sense, he seemed to have little understanding of the fact that NI increases will affect employment, so I thought I'd look up what type of businesses he's run.

The answer is appears is none, he left University, worked as a trainee solicitor though never completed his training. He then became a political assistant for an MP, then got elected as an MP.

The Tories were useless, and I had high hopes for Labour, but if this bloke is Secretary of State for Business, then we have no chance.

He was on the full media round this morning.

I caught him on 5Live and then later, when I turned the TV on, he was just coming onto GMTV (or whatever it's called) where Martin Lewis was all set to give him a grilling.

On a day when many people are wondering how they are going to deal with significant rises in water rates, energy bills and council tax, he came across very arrogantly and dismissive of the concerns those people have.

It struck me that the government had sent out the wrong person today - it needed someone with a softer tone.

 

[fly high]

I listened to Jonathan Reynolds this morning on Today.

He's the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and President of The Board of Trade.

His replies to questions over the Employer's NI increases made no sense, he seemed to have little understanding of the fact that NI increases will affect employment, so I thought I'd look up what type of businesses he's run.

The answer is appears is none, he left University, worked as a trainee solicitor though never completed his training. He then became a political assistant for an MP, then got elected as an MP.

The Tories were useless, and I had high hopes for Labour, but if this bloke is Secretary of State for Business, then we have no chance.

That is a major problem with many MPs who have never had a proper job and no experience of running a business or difficulty of making a profit, employing people plus all the regulations they have to work to.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

That is a major problem with many MPs who have never had a proper job and no experience of running a business or difficulty of making a profit, employing people plus all the regulations they have to work to.

Of course there are always going to be some 'career politians' in the HOC who have never run a business, or even worked in industry /commerce.

Appointing such a person to be Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and President of The Board of Trade seems somewhat bizarre.

 

[BBassic]

I'm no economic mastermind so I can't claim to understand much (or any) of this but the optics of tax cuts for the rich following so swiftly from benefits cuts for the poor doesn't look good at all.

Starmer offers big US tech firms tax cuts in return for lower Trump tariffs

Exclusive: UK willing to placate Trump with lower digital services tax rate also encompassing non-US companies

www.theguardian.com

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm no economic mastermind so I can't claim to understand much (or any) of this but the optics of tax cuts for the rich following so swiftly from benefits cuts for the poor doesn't look good at all.

Starmer offers big US tech firms tax cuts in return for lower Trump tariffs

Exclusive: UK willing to placate Trump with lower digital services tax rate also encompassing non-US companies

www.theguardian.com

the problem there is accepting the idea that smaller increases to future budgets is a cut. if tariffs have the impact that's predicted, it may mean actual real cuts to budgets.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the problem there is accepting the idea that smaller increases to future budgets is a cut. if tariffs have the impact that's predicted, it may mean actual real cuts to budgets.

I'd far prefer Starmer to retaliate with tarifs of his own.

 

[fly high]

the problem there is accepting the idea that smaller increases to future budgets is a cut. if tariffs have the impact that's predicted, it may mean actual real cuts to budgets.

The amount of tax they pay is only symbolic, £800m between them is peanuts considering how much money they make out of us. Greedy bastards.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'd far prefer Starmer to retaliate with tarifs of his own.

we the consumer pay for tariffs though, not much of a retaliation.

 

[fly high]

we the consumer pay for tariffs though, not much of a retaliation.

Best thing is to follow Canada's example and stop buying US goods where we can.

 

[SouthSaxon]

Best thing is to follow Canada's example and stop buying US goods where we can.

True, but it’ll be harder to avoid supply chain impact

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

we the consumer pay for tariffs though, not much of a retaliation.

Giving in to a bully is less palatable in my opinion. The UK voted to accept economic turmoil as a trade-off for sovereignty with Brexit, I see this as similar. There's a democratic will to stand up to Trump.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I'd far prefer Starmer to retaliate with tarifs of his own.

TBF to SKS, he has to wait, let the negotiations going on behind the scenes continue, in the hope a deal can be done.

It may actually help that we're not part of the EU and can negotiate our own deal

Dropping the tech tax however would surely be seen as giving in to the bully though.

My business exports to the States, and it's certainly a difficult time.

 

[beorhthelm]

Giving in to a bully is less palatable in my opinion. The UK voted to accept economic turmoil as a trade-off for sovereignty with Brexit, I see this as similar. There's a democratic will to stand up to Trump.

framing like this is accepting the Trumpian view the tariffs are a punishment on foreigners.

 

[SouthSaxon]

framing like this is accepting the Trumpian view the tariffs are a punishment on foreigners.

My understanding of it, if Trump is opting for global tariffs, is as follows. Happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge on anything I’ve got wrong here.

Its a one-to-many relationship, with the US being the one and all other countries being the many. This means that impact on US consumers will be greater than on any other country. Other countries can minimise the damage by simply reducing the trade with the US, although this likely requires high levels of coordination (of the type we've heard about with Japan/China/South Korea).

• For UK consumers, impact will be felt on US products or products that include US in the supply chain
• For US consumers, impact will be felt on all imported products plus any domestic products that include US supply chain

UK businesses will have the option to move their supply chain away from the US or to pass the extra costs onto consumers. UK consumers will have the option to avoid buying those goods with increased prices. Given that rising prices could cause falling sales and job losses, this will be a tricky balancing act.

US businesses will only have the option of moving supply chain to the domestic side, which they can only do where resources are available*. This is what the administration wants, to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and reduce reliance on overseas manufacturing using cheap labour. They also want balanced trade with countries around the world, which is something Trump has been on his soapbox about since the 1980s.

There will be nuance to this depending how far and wide the tariffs reach. I wonder if marketplaces like Amazon will become their own little microcosms of this.

* Which likely explains why Trump is so keen on Greenland, Canada and minerals deals with Ukraine/Russia. Tariffs encourage imperialism because it offers direct ownership/control of raw materials and resources that are simply not available domestically.

 

[abc]

I'm no economic mastermind so I can't claim to understand much (or any) of this but the optics of tax cuts for the rich following so swiftly from benefits cuts for the poor doesn't look good at all.

Starmer offers big US tech firms tax cuts in return for lower Trump tariffs

Exclusive: UK willing to placate Trump with lower digital services tax rate also encompassing non-US companies

www.theguardian.com

This makes my blood boil and if it happens then it will be the last time I defend any aspect of Starmer or his government (and I have tried regularly). Every business and charity here is about to be hit with massive increases in costs due to the NI changes, pensioners did not get a heating fuel allowance, thousands of people with severe disabilities are having their care supports cut which will destroy lives, growth forecasts have been halved due Reeves's policies which will impact the poorest most, unemployment is set to rise due to the NI rises and the planned employment law changes and yet Starmer is going to reduce or eliminate the tax paid by Amazon and Meta.

Speechless and angry

 

[Ding Dong !]

and I had high hopes for Labour,

And that's where you went wrong

 

[fly high]

This makes my blood boil and if it happens then it will be the last time I defend any aspect of Starmer or his government (and I have tried regularly). Every business and charity here is about to be hit with massive increases in costs due to the NI changes, pensioners did not get a heating fuel allowance, thousands of people with severe disabilities are having their care supports cut which will destroy lives, growth forecasts have been halved due Reeves's policies which will impact the poorest most, unemployment is set to rise due to the NI rises and the planned employment law changes and yet Starmer is going to reduce or eliminate the tax paid by Amazon and Meta.

Speechless and angry

Looks like grovelling to them. The more we offer the more they will want. From thier point of view they hold all the cards.

 

[beorhthelm]

My understanding of it, if Trump is opting for global tariffs, is as follows. Happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge on anything I’ve got wrong here.

Its a one-to-many relationship, with the US being the one and all other countries being the many. This means that impact on US consumers will be greater than on any other country. Other countries can minimise the damage by simply reducing the trade with the US, although this likely requires high levels of coordination (of the type we've heard about with Japan/China/South Korea).

• For UK consumers, impact will be felt on US products or products that include US in the supply chain
• For US consumers, impact will be felt on all imported products plus any domestic products that include US supply chain

UK businesses will have the option to move their supply chain away from the US or to pass the extra costs onto consumers. UK consumers will have the option to avoid buying those goods with increased prices. Given that rising prices could cause falling sales and job losses, this will be a tricky balancing act.

US businesses will only have the option of moving supply chain to the domestic side, which they can only do where resources are available*. This is what the administration wants, to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and reduce reliance on overseas manufacturing using cheap labour. They also want balanced trade with countries around the world, which is something Trump has been on his soapbox about since the 1980s.

There will be nuance to this depending how far and wide the tariffs reach. I wonder if marketplaces like Amazon will become their own little microcosms of this.

* Which likely explains why Trump is so keen on Greenland, Canada and minerals deals with Ukraine/Russia. Tariffs encourage imperialism because it offers direct ownership/control of raw materials and resources that are simply not available domestically.

broadly right, aside couple of major issues, the main point is we or any other country dont need to apply tariffs, and if we dont there's no cost to our supply chain or consumers. they just add a self inflicted cost on basis of tit for tat. braver politicans would say sure you can increase your cost of goods, we're not increasing ours. Starmer seems to be trying something like this approach, leveraging something (Trump likes to get something).

*for fun, those issues: he wants to raise revenue to replaces taxes, if production returns that revenue goes; it's years to build the capacity back in US, there's not that many jobs in it relatively due to automation, and they dont have a particularly large job problem. until then they'll have higher costs, and if/when production returns, they'll also have higher costs.

 

[SouthSaxon]

broadly right, aside couple of major issues, the main point is we or any other country dont need to apply tariffs, and if we dont there's no cost to our supply chain or consumers. they just add a self inflicted cost on basis of tit for tat. braver politicans would say sure you can increase your cost of goods, we're not increasing ours. Starmer seems to be trying something like this approach, leveraging something (Trump likes to get something).

*for fun, those issues: he wants to raise revenue to replaces taxes, if production returns that revenue goes; it's years to build the capacity back in US, there's not that many jobs in it relatively due to automation, and they dont have a particularly large job problem.

Thanks - yes, my post assumes the tariffs end up being reciprocal.