Профиль

That's fair - 'traditional' perhaps not the best choice of word

"Active support or tough love? Whatever you call it, it could be the answer to the youth Neets crisis." Interesting and well thought through piece by @benzaranko.bsky.social: observer.co.uk/news/busines...

My assessment of Andy Burnham's week one governing philosophy observer.co.uk/news/politic...

For every £1 spent by the DWP on employment support for young people, around £25 is spent paying them benefits. A rebalancing from passive to active support is on the cards. What could that look like? What questions does it raise? I went to Sunderland to find out: observer.co.uk/news/busines...

My assessment of Andy Burnham's week one governing philosophy observer.co.uk/news/politic...

For every £1 spent by the DWP on employment support for young people, around £25 is spent paying them benefits. A rebalancing from passive to active support is on the cards. What could that look like? What questions does it raise? I went to Sunderland to find out: observer.co.uk/news/busines...

Good little fact here

I wrote about this very issue for the Observer a few months ago: observer.co.uk/news/capital...

This is an amazing chart - but it shows *relative* inequality. Because wealth has grown from 3.5 to 7 times annual GDP since 1991, the *absolute* wealth gaps are wider, and stagnant wages mean it's harder to earn your way up the ladder. So beneath the surface, still cause for concern.

Yes I clocked this, but only after sending... But you don't have to find anything if you put it in as a "temporary" measure

To get this sort of searing analysis direct to your inbox, plus other bonus content (which, this week, includes the best and worst cities for a cheap date, and the economic impacts of weight loss jabs), you can sign up for my newsletter here: observer.co.uk/newsletters

There will be lots of focus on the Number 10-Treasury relationship under Burnham and Healey. I think we should also keep an eye on the Treasury-Bank of England relationship, as the new government goes on the hunt for "flexibility" within the existing fiscal rules... observer.co.uk/news/politic...

I'm minded to agree, and given it's a one-off, I'd have thought it shouldn't matter for the MPC (except maybe via expectations, as you say). But I've been surprised by the extent to which City analysts were supportive of the cuts to levies last year, and how much they pushed for stuff like this

Looking again at the PR, isn't it just that the costing is for 2026/27 and the tax cut doesn't start until October, so only applies for 2/3 of the year?

Yes I've seen that! Another one for the budget pile

It’s being presented as fully funded, because the government will no longer be spending on a new digital ID scheme. But if, as seems possible, that wasn’t properly funded to begin with, it's another £850m the new Chancellor will have to find from somewhere at the Budget.

Cutting VAT on electricity bills will provide a (modest) financial incentive for households to electrify, for instance by moving from a gas boiler to a heat pump, which is at least the right direction of travel.

Once you’ve removed levies on energy bills, or cut VAT to 0%, you can’t do so again. The government will eventually run out of cost of living measures like this.

This continues the approach taken at last year’s Budget, in which Rachel Reeves sought to directly reduce inflation by removing various levies from energy bills, and by freezing things like rail fares and prescription charges. Inflation no longer left solely to the Bank.

The tax cut is expected to reduce the headline rate of CPI inflation by 0.1 percentage points (as a one off). All else equal, that should make it slightly easier for the Bank of England to cut interest rates.