Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

Key findings

1. Many tax and benefit thresholds, allowances and amounts (parameters) are by default uprated every year in line with prices or in some cases earnings. But others are frozen in cash terms, sometimes temporarily by explicit policy choices but often indefinitely. Compared with uprating, such freezes reduce household incomes and strengthen the public finances all the more so in the high-inflation environment we currently find ourselves in. These freezes which represent a stealthy and arbitrary way to raise tax revenue often have a bigger impact on household incomes than more eye-catching discretionary measures. Several benefit reforms are also being rolled out over the coming years, which also overall act to reduce household incomes.

2. The range of frozen parameters is wide, covering many aspects of the tax and benefit system. For example, we are one year into a four-year freeze in the income tax personal allowance and higher-rate threshold, which is set to raise the government 30 billion per year when finished. But other parameters are frozen indefinitely including the 100,000 threshold where the personal allowance begins to be withdrawn, the benefit cap, the maximum assets that universal credit claimants can have, and local housing allowance rates which cap recipients housing benefit.

3. Freezes to personal tax parameters alone will reduce households income by 1,250 on average by 202526. Adding in freezes to benefits and gradual policy roll-outs brings that figure to 1,450, or 3.3% of income, and means a 41 billion boost to the exchequer. That is double the 20 billion gain in household income (and loss to the exchequer) from the high-profile personal tax giveaways the reduction in National Insurance contributions and 1p cut to the basic rate of income tax. In other words, on average for every 1 households gain from high-profile cuts to rates of income tax and National Insurance, they lose 2 from the freezes and policy roll-outs. Not only does this hold in total, but in every income decile the average impact of gradual roll-outs and freezes outweighs the impact of the explicit discretionary policy changes.

4.The combined impact of headline tax changes, policy roll-outs and frozen taxes and benefits by 202526 is broadly regressive, with the poorest seeing income falls of 2.8% of income and the richest falls of only 1.1%. Headline cuts to income tax and National Insurance will benefit higher-income households who are more likely to get more of their income from employment, while the poorest tenth of households will gain only 13 per year from these measures. Because some tax thresholds and especially benefits values are indefinitely frozen, the impact of freezes only grows over time. As a result, by 203031 the total changes to the tax and benefit system are more clearly regressive, with the highest-income tenth seeing a 1.3% fall in income and the lowest-income tenth a 4.7% fall.

5.Freezes to tax thresholds and benefit values combined with higher-than-expected inflation change the shape of the tax and benefit system. The four-year freeze to the personal allowance and higher-rate threshold (scheduled to run to March 2026) is expected to increase the share of adults paying income tax to 66% (35 million) and the share paying the higher rate to 14% (7.7 million), compared with 63% (34 million) and 11% (6.1 million) today. The point at which the personal allowance begins to be tapered away (100,000) and the additional-rate threshold (150,000) have both been frozen since their introduction in 2010. By 202526, 3% of adults (1.6 million) will have some of their personal allowance withdrawn, and 1.4% (760,000) will pay additional-rate tax in both cases around triple the equivalent number in 2010 when the thresholds were created.

6.The freezing of the 50,000 threshold at which child benefit begins to be withdrawn has led to 26% of families with children (2 million) now losing some or all of their child benefit double the proportion when the policy was introduced a decade ago. In addition, the frozen benefit cap means the number of families with capped benefits could hit around quarter of a million in 202526 double the current figure, and three-and-a-half times as many as when the cap was last actively reformed in 2016.

7. Freezes mean the shape and size of the tax and benefit system change in an uncertain and arbitrary manner, depending on unpredictable changes in inflation. Millions more are set to be paying higher tax rates by 202526 than the government could have predicted when income tax thresholds were frozen in April 2021, purely because prices have increased at an unexpectedly high rate. These problems are worse in a high-inflation environment, but even in times of lower inflation, freezes reduce the transparency of tax and benefit reforms, allowing the size of the system to be changed by stealth. All tax and benefit parameters should be uprated by a sensible index. If the government wants to raise taxes or cut benefits, it should tell us what real value it thinks the parameter in question should be, and not let it be unpredictably buffeted around by inflation.

High-profile reforms to the tax and benefit system have long been a core part of the economic policy landscape, and that is no different today. The new Prime Minister and Chancellor have announced reforms to scrap the health and social care levy and reverse the associated recent National Insurance contributions (NICs) rise; scrap the planned rise in the rate of corporation tax for April 2023; and cut the basic rate of income tax by 1p in 202324 (rather than in 202425 as originally announced by then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak in March 2022). These are big, deliberate and high-profile fiscal decisions which will increase disposable household income. The Energy Price Guarantee and other energy support measures also represent significant income boosts for household incomes, though this chapter focuses on policies with a permanent effect on the taxbenefit system rather than this one-off support package.

But as well as explicit policy changes such as these, the tax and benefit system is gradually and stealthily changed over time, as various thresholds, allowances and benefit amounts (herein parameters) are frozen either for a defined period or permanently, resulting in falls in their real value as prices rise. This matters all the more in the high-inflation environment and the more uncertain inflation environment we now find ourselves in. In addition, other reforms (especially benefit changes) are often slowly rolled out, meaning that their impact grows over time.

This chapter will show the impact of freezes and gradual roll-outs on personal taxes and benefits, as well as considering some large discretionary changes to the tax system that are planned in the coming years. We show that the combined impact of freezing various parameters is highly significant, and larger than the effect of explicitly announced reductions in the rates of income tax and NICs.

By default, many tax and benefit parameters rise by growth in some index: the Retail Prices Index (RPI; mainly duties), average earnings (mainly state pensions) or, most commonly, the Consumer Prices Index (CPI). Indexing parameters this way is entirely sensible: it ensures that, without deliberate policy intervention, the levels of these parameters keep up with some meaningful real values, so that, for example, the level of support the out-of-work benefit system provides delivers roughly the same purchasing power over time, and the incomes of pensioners reliant on the state pension keep pace with the income of the average earner. However, for various historical reasons, and sometimes for reasons of deliberate policy reform, not all parameters are indexed in this way. In Section 5.2, we give a list of frozen parameters, and illustrate the impact of some of these freezes on the shape of the taxbenefit system.

As well as these freezes, there are a number of benefits policies being steadily rolled out, affecting the shape of the taxbenefit system:

Replacement of the legacy working-age benefit system with universal credit (UC). This occurs for three reasons: new benefit claimants can generally only make claims for UC; changes in circumstances can cause claimants to transition from the legacy benefits to UC; and the recently rebooted Move to UC scheme transitions existing legacy claimants across to UC even if they have not had a change in circumstances. On current plans, the UC roll-out will be finished by the end of 2024, at which point it will be received by 7 million families (Waters and Wernham, 2021), and in the long run will cost the government roughly 5 billion per year more than the system it replaces, though with a large number of winners and losers (see Brewer et al. (2019)). As of May 2022, roughly 60% of the roll-out had occurred. One additional complication is that those who are transferred to UC under the Move to UC scheme will be eligible for transitional protection. This means that, if they would receive less under UC than they had been receiving under the legacy system, they will continue to receive the (cash) amount they got previously until they have a change in circumstances or their UC entitlement becomes higher. DWP estimates that 600,000 families will receive transitional protection when they are transitioned (Department for Work and Pensions, 2022b) As these transitional protections expire, UC therefore becomes slightly less generous.

The two-child limit in tax credits and universal credit. Prior to this policy, a child born to a family in receipt of tax credits or UC would generate an additional child element in the benefit in question, currently worth 2,935 per year. The so-called two-child limit means that, in the vast majority of cases, a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017 will not generate this element. Because of the link to the date of birth, this policy is in effect being slowly rolled out, and this process will not finish until the mid 2030s when all dependent children will have been born on or after 6 April 2017. When fully rolled out, the reform will affect 750,000 households who will lose around 3,600 per year each, saving the government roughly 2 billion (Joyce and Waters, 2019). As of April 2022, about half of the roll-out had been completed (Department for Work and Pensions & HM Revenue and Customs, 2022).

Abolition of the family premium in tax credits and universal credit. Prior to this policy, recipients of tax credits and universal credit received a 545 annual premium for having any children (in addition to the child elements discussed above). This is now only available to families where the eldest child was born before 6 April 2017. As with the two-child limit, this means that the policy will not be fully rolled out until the mid 2030s. When it is, 3.2 million households will be without that 545 premium, saving the government 1.8 billion per year (Joyce and Waters, 2019).

Abolition of work-related activity premium in employment and support allowance and the equivalent in universal credit. Both universal credit and employment and support allowance (an incapacity benefit for those whose disabilities affect how much they can work) assess the degree of incapacity of claimants. Prior to this policy, claimants who were deemed to have a limited capability for work, but who may be able to engage in work-related activity such as CV preparation, were awarded 1,500 per year for being in that group, on top of their other entitlements. This premium has been abolished for those who began a new claim from 3 April 2017. When fully rolled out, this reform will affect around 500,000 people at any point in time (Department for Work and Pensions, 2015), saving the government 0.75 billion a year. We estimate that in November 2021, 160,000 claimants were still in receipt of the premium.

Ending entitlement to pension-age benefits for mixed-age couples. Low-income couples where one partner is above state pension age and the other below what DWP calls mixed-age couples have historically been able to claim pension credit (and, for renters, housing benefit). Mixed-age couples who begin a benefit claim from 15 May 2019, however, will only be able to claim the rather less generous universal credit. When fully rolled out (i.e. when all benefit claims by mixed-age couples began from 15 May 2019), around 115,000 families will lose out from this policy, to the tune of 5,900 per year each, saving the government 0.7 billion (Cribb and Waters, 2019). An estimated 50,000 families are currently affected by the policy (Department for Work and Pensions, 2019).

Lastly, there are two explicit big personal tax reforms planned for the next six months: the scrapping of the health and social care levy and reversal of the associated NICs rise, and a 1p cut to the basic rate of income tax.

This chapter will first focus on a few specific freezes: those to income tax thresholds, child benefit taper thresholds and the benefit cap. We will show how these freezes have already affected, and are due to affect, the real value of these parameters, as well as how they change the number of (higher-rate) taxpayers and the number of benefit-capped benefit recipients (Section 5.2). We will then move on to study the distributional impacts of freezes to taxes and benefits, policy roll-outs, and planned tax policy changes (Section 5.3). In Section 5.4, we will then consider why freezing parameters in this way is a problem, and make some recommendations for how policy should be changed.

Our basic methodology is as follows. We take household survey data (201920 Family Resources Survey, FRS) and uprate them to 202223 terms using Bank of England forecasts from August 2022 for key variables (in particular earnings). We then use TAXBEN, the IFS taxbenefit microsimulation model (Waters, 2017), to simulate incomes under alternative future tax and benefit systems. In the baseline system, policy evolves according to current plans, including freezing parameters, rolling out policies, and implementing the two discretionary policy reforms described above. We compare this with a system where all taxbenefit parameters are uprated from their 202223 level by the CPI (or earnings, where that is the existing default; in both cases, again we use the Bank of Englands August forecast), all policy roll-outs are halted at the point they are at in 202223, and no planned discretionary policies are implemented. In Box 5.1 later, we discuss in more detail how we model policy roll-outs.

In this section, we show some of the huge range of tax and benefit parameters that are subject to In this section, we show some of the huge range of tax and benefit parameters that are subject tofreezes. We then examine some specific frozen parameters and show how they steadily change the shape of the tax and benefit system, before showing how the freezes affect the value of the parameters, and the implications for the number of taxpayers and benefit recipients.

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 provide a non-exhaustive list of frozen parameters in the tax and benefit systems respectively, when they were frozen, and what level they would be today if they had been CPI uprated since then. The impacts of most of these freezes on household incomes are modelled in Section 5.3. This chapter will take a closer look at three of these freezes (income tax thresholds, child benefit taper thresholds and the benefit cap), giving detail on the size of the impacts and the implications of these.

Table 5.1. Frozen tax parameters

Note: Freezes not modelled in this chapter are marked with a . Parameters frozen due to recent policy decisions are marked with a *; other parameters are frozen by default. Parameters marked with a were temporarily increased from July 2020 to September 2021. p.a. = per annum.

Table 5.2. Frozen benefit parameters

Note: Freezes not modelled in this chapter are marked with a . Parameters frozen due to recent policy decisions are marked with a *; other parameters are frozen by default. p.a. = per annum; p.w. = per week; p.m. = per month.

The list of frozen parameters is long and wide ranging, affecting almost all areas of the tax and benefit system. They affect whether people are liable for taxes or eligible for benefits, and the amounts they pay and receive. For example, the freeze in asset test thresholds since 2006 means families could hold 6,880 more in assets in real terms then than they can today, before becoming ineligible for benefits. The frozen child benefit taper thresholds mean families highest earners now become ineligible for child benefit with a level of earnings 8,052 lower in real terms than when the policy was introduced in 2013. If the Sure Start maternity grant had been uprated, new low-income mothers would receive 758, over 50% more than the frozen amount. On the tax side, the freeze of inheritance tax thresholds means that (for non-homeowners) nearly 100,000 less than in 2009 can be bequeathed in real terms before estates become liable for inheritance tax. The pensions annual allowance freeze means 5,368 less can be saved in a pension tax-free than in 2014, while 2,235 less can be saved each year in an ISA than in 2017. And as Section 5.3 will show, freezes to income tax and National Insurance thresholds will by 2025 more than offset the headline planned tax cuts.

Different freezes affect very different parts of the income distribution and different family types, but, compared with maintaining the real values of parameters, almost all reduce household incomes and strengthen the public finances (by either reducing benefits or increasing tax revenue); and currently high inflation has made all of them more important. Put simply, the decision of whether or not to freeze a threshold in cash terms matters a lot more when inflation is running at around 10% (as it is currently) than when it is hovering around the Bank of Englands 2% target. And higher inflation is typically associated with more uncertain inflation. By 2025, consumer prices are expected to have risen 24% on the current year (202223) but frozen parameters will (on current policy) remain unchanged. Moreover, freezes can have knock-on effects for work incentives both strengthening and weakening them and sometimes can exacerbate bizarre aspects of the system (as Adam and Johnson (2019) show for the pensions allowances, and as we show later in this section for child benefit). Importantly, most of these parameters are indefinitely frozen, meaning that without explicit policy intervention the impact of the freezes will grow more and more each year.

It seems as if there is an increased tendency to introduce new parameters without an uprating rule. The additional-rate threshold, the point at which the personal allowance is withdrawn, pension contribution allowances, the personal savings allowance, the maximum income for eligibility to tax-free childcare and an extra 15 hours per week of childcare, the child benefit taper, the benefit cap and the maximum earnings for free school meals eligibility in UC have all been introduced since 2010 and all are by default frozen. Over the same period, we have also seen some very important time-limited (but long) freezes, including the four-year freeze to income tax and NICs thresholds we are in the midst of, and a four-year freeze to most working-age benefits between 201516 and 201920. This is lazy policymaking.

In 202223, no income tax is paid on the first 12,570 of income (the personal allowance); a 20% rate is applied on the portion up to 50,270 (the higher-rate threshold); a 40% rate on the portion up to 150,000 (the additional-rate threshold); and a 45% rate above that. In addition, 1 of personal allowance is withdrawn for every 2 of income above 100,000 with the effect that those with incomes between 100,000 and 125,140 face a marginal income tax rate of 60%.

The personal allowance and higher-rate thresholds usually go up annually with CPI, but are currently frozen at their 202122 level, where they are due to remain for three more years until March 2026. The additional-rate threshold and personal allowance withdrawal threshold have been frozen since their introduction in 201011, and both will, on current policy, be frozen indefinitely. On the August Bank of England forecasts, this means that in 202526 the value of the personal allowance, higher-rate threshold, personal allowance withdrawal threshold and additional-rate threshold will be 19% lower than today, and hence, in current prices, 10,168, 40,664, 80,889 and 121,333 respectively. In the decade prior to the freezing of the personal allowance and higher-rate threshold, we saw a number of discretionary changes to both parameters. The personal allowance had been significantly increased, and so even after the four-year freeze will still be higher in real terms than it was in 201011 (10,168 versus 8,356). The higher-rate threshold, however, was subject to a number of nominal cuts in the first half of the 2010s, then above-inflation increases in the second half. The net effect is that by 202526 the higher-rate threshold will be considerably lower in real terms than it was in 201011 (40,664 versus 56,619).

The impact of these freezes to income tax thresholds will be to increase steadily the number of income tax payers, as well as the number paying higher rates of income tax an example of what is known as fiscal drag. This is illustrated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2, which show the share of adults paying any income tax, and paying higher-rate tax, over time respectively. The diamonds show how those shares are expected to change under current policy (freezing the thresholds) and how they would change if there had been no income tax freeze. By 202526, the share of adults paying any income tax is expected to be 66% (35 million), compared with 63% today (34 million), and around the highest level on record. If the personal allowance had gone up in line with inflation, only 59% (32 million) would be projected to pay income tax in 202526 reflecting the fact that earnings are expected to grow more slowly than prices. The share of adults paying higher-rate tax is expected to increase to 14% (7.7 million), compared with 11% today (6.1 million). This is over double the proportion in 200910, and almost four times that in 1990. It is also above the 9% (4.6 million) that would be expected if the higher-rate threshold had gone up in line with inflation.

Figure 5.1. Number of income tax payers, as a share of adults

Source: HM Revenue and Customs, 2022. Authors calculations using inflation and earnings forecasts from Bank of England (2022), Family Resources Survey 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

Figure 5.2. Number of higher-rate taxpayers, as a share of adults

Source: HM Revenue and Customs, 2022. Authors calculations using inflation and earnings forecasts from Bank of England (2022), Family Resources Survey 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

Freezing these parameters also increases the tax liabilities of those who are already taxpayers. By 202526, the four-year freeze to the personal allowance will be costing the typical basic-rate taxpayer 500 per year in todays prices, while the freezes to both the personal allowance and higher-rate threshold will cost typical higher-rate taxpayers around 3,000 per year.

These numbers all go up when inflation increases, so while the four-year freeze to the personal allowance and higher-rate threshold was expected to raise 8 billion per year when it was announced, it is now expected to raise 30 billion per year. Larger numbers of people will be paying higher rates of tax than the government expected when the policy was decided, purely because inflation has increased more than forecast.

The share of adults paying additional-rate tax has more than doubled from 0.5% (240,000) in 201011 (when the additional rate was introduced) to 1.2% (630,000) in 202223. Had the additional-rate threshold been indexed to CPI, we estimate that only 0.7% of adults (390,000) would be paying additional-rate tax today, meaning that 240,000 have been dragged into additional-rate tax because of the freeze. If it continues to be frozen (as is current policy) then by 202526, 1.4% of adults (760,000) will be additional-rate taxpayers.

The freezing of the threshold at which the personal allowance begins to be withdrawn (100,000) has taken place over the same period. At its introduction in 201011, 1.0% of adults (530,000) had at least some of their personal allowance withdrawn because their income was over 100,000. That figure now stands at 2.4% (1.3 million), but we estimate it would have been just 1.3% (710,000) if the threshold had been indexed to CPI. If, as current policy implies, it continues to be frozen, by 202526 3.0% of adults (1.6 million) will have at least some of their personal allowance withdrawn. That is three times more families being affected than when it was implemented by the last Labour government in April 2010.

It would be sensible to index all tax thresholds to the same series (say, CPI or average earnings). The current practice of freezing some indefinitely and by default increasing others with prices means that, without any deliberate policy intention, the shape of the tax system changes over time. For example, the size of the 40p band of income tax (between the higher- and additional-rate thresholds) has slowly declined over time, as the higher rate usually goes up with prices, and the additional rate has never changed. Moreover, freezing thresholds changes the level of real income one needs to be subject to a certain rate of tax. For example, someone who in 201011 had an income of 100,000 was not deemed high-income enough to lose any of their personal allowance. But someone with the same real income today (129,047 in todays prices) is deemed sufficiently high-income to lose their entire personal allowance. This change is not because of an explicit choice about redistribution, but just because the point at which the personal allowance is withdrawn has been frozen.

The high-income child benefit tax charge, introduced in January 2013, means that child benefit is tapered away for families whose highest-income partner has an annual income above 50,000. For every 100 of that individuals income above 50,000, child benefit entitlement falls by 1%. This means that if the higher-income partners income is below 60,000, then the family is eligible for a partial payment, whereas if income is at or above this amount, the family is not eligible for child benefit. These thresholds are frozen in nominal terms, meaning that every year more families lose eligibility for some or all of their child benefit. At the time the policy was announced, 13% of families with children (1 million) lost some or all of their child benefit (Emmerson, Joyce and Waters, 2019). As a result of the freeze, we calculate the figure is now 26% (2 million families), and this is set to rise to 31% (2.5 million) in 202526 if the freeze continues. So by 202526, two-and-a-half times as many families will lose some or all of their child benefit as when the policy was first introduced.

Notably, when the policy was initially proposed, the point at which child benefit was due to be tapered was set to be linked to the higher-rate threshold then 43,875. However, when it was actually introduced, the tapering threshold was raised to 50,000 i.e. more generous than the originally mooted policy. But now the higher-rate threshold is above 50,000, this change has in fact served to reduce eligibility i.e. there are now some families with children that do not contain a higher-rate taxpayer who are not entitled to full child benefit.

One effect of tapering away child benefit is an oddly shaped marginal tax rate schedule, which jumps up in the range where child benefit is withdrawn, then jumps back down again, illustrated by the solid lines in Figure 5.3. An employee with two children faces a marginal tax rate (including employee NICs) of 32% if they earn just under 50,000. This rises to 60.9% at a little over 50,000 when they begin to pay higher-rate tax and start to lose their child benefit, before falling to 42% when their earnings reach 60,000, by which time they have lost all child benefit entitlement. For those with more children, the jump is even more stark, as they have more child benefit to lose.

Figure 5.3. Marginal tax rates by number of children

Note: Marginal tax rate for a single earner, or the higher earner in a couple, excluding all benefits other than child benefit. Employer NICs and the 2022 National Insurance rise (to be reversed) are also excluded.Source: Authors calculations.

Moreover, a consequence of freezing the taper thresholds is that the size of the jump in marginal tax rates increases over time, illustrated by the dashed lines in the figure. This is because while the range over which child benefit is withdrawn is frozen, the value of child benefit is not, so the amount of benefit withdrawn with each additional 1 of earnings increases. For example, currently child benefit for two children is 1,885, so an individual with two children on the taper who earns an extra 100 loses 18.85 (1% of the benefit). But in 202526 the child benefit rate for the first child is set to rise to 2,330, so earning an extra 100 results in a child benefit loss of 23.30. Because of this effect, by 202526 the worker with two children is due to see a marginal tax rate in the hump of the schedule of 65.37%. At the same time, as is also visible in the figure, freezing the thresholds means that the withdrawal of child benefit will affect people in a lower and narrower range of real earnings over time. It is difficult to think of a reason why the marginal tax rate schedule should be hump-shaped in this way, and even harder to imagine why the size of the hump should by default get higher and move down the real income distribution every year.

The benefit cap limits the total amount of benefits a working-age family can claim, with some exceptions (principally those in work, those who have recently been in work and those with disabilities). It was introduced in 2013, cut in 2016, and has been frozen since. The current amounts are 20,000 per year for couples and lone parents, and 13,400 per year for single adults (higher amounts apply in London, which are also frozen; we focus here on the non-London caps).

At the time of the 2016 cut, the value of the benefit cap was, in todays prices, 22,435 for couples and lone parents, and 15,032 for single adults. By 202526, the values are set to have been eroded to just 16,178 and 10,839 (in todays prices) by inflation. This amounts to a 28% real cut since 2016.

When the cap was introduced in 2013, only about 25,000 families had their benefit capped. That increased to around 70,000 following the 2016 cut, and as of February 2022 stands at 120,000 (Department for Work and Pensions, 2022a). These families lose out on 3,150 per year on average due to the cap, or 14% of what their income would be if there were no cap, so the impact is significant for affected families. As inflation erodes the value of the cap further, while the basic benefit amounts are largely indexed to inflation, more and more families will be affected by the cap over time, reaching around a quarter of a million by 202526. This is ten times as many as when the benefit cap was introduced, and three-and-a-half times as many as when it was last actively reformed in 2016.

For families that are capped, the freeze means that the amount lost because of the cap increases in real terms over time. Whatever the merits of the cap in principle, it is difficult to see why it should be frozen or indeed indexed to anything other than what the basic benefit amounts are indexed to. The current approach means that over time the cap has a bigger and bigger impact, and the amount of real support the benefit system offers to out-of-work families falls with the size of these effects not determined by any deliberate policy choice, but just by the vagaries of inflation.

We now turn to the full set of reforms detailed in Section 5.1. In this section, we model the impact of freezes of taxes and benefits (both those that are indefinitely frozen and those that are frozen for a set period), and the roll-outs of UC and other benefit policies. We simulate the effects in 202526 the final year of the income tax and NICs threshold freezes and 203031. We will then see how these compare against the planned big discretionary reforms to personal taxes the reversal of the introduction of the health and social care levy, and the 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax. Table 5A.1 in the appendix summarises the fiscal implications of these reforms.

Freezes and roll-outs to 202526

First, Figure 5.4 shows how freezes and policy roll-outs between now and 202526 would affect household incomes if no discretionary policy changes were made (i.e. if the two reforms to NICs and income tax listed above were not implemented). The combined impact is to reduce average incomes by 3.3% or 1,450, saving the exchequer 41 billion. The impact is broadly progressive, as poorer households see smaller proportional income falls than richer households.

Figure 5.4. Changes in income by decile: freezes and roll-outs to 202526

Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

The main driver of this reduction in incomes, overall and for all but the poorest 20% of households, is freezes to tax thresholds. These will cost the highest-income tenth of households 3,610 per year on average by 202526, compared with just 57 for the poorest tenth, who are much less likely to be in work and/or paying income tax. Of the average tax rise of 1,250 per household, the remaining three years of freezes to income tax and National Insurance thresholds account for 1,120. These are labelled temporary in the figure because the freeze is time-limited, but of course their impact is permanent, since once the freezes expire the thresholds will only be uprated by annual inflation thereafter, meaning three years of growth will have been permanently lost. The indefinite freezes to other tax parameters fall disproportionately on the richest 10% of households.

Freezes to benefits have a much smaller effect than freezes to taxes, costing the average household 210 per year (and saving the exchequer 6 billion). This means that the indefinite tax and benefit freezes, which occur without any deliberate intervention, will reduce household incomes and strengthen the public finances by 10 billion per year by 202526. In a typical year of 2% CPI growth, this figure grows by around a further 1 billion, and will continue to do so beyond 202526 for as long as these freezes continue. The freeze in the child benefit taper threshold is particularly felt in the top half of the distribution, accounting for an average drop in income of 64 per year for this group. But the majority of benefit parameter freezes primarily affect lower-income households, with the poorest 10% losing out by 275 per year on average, or 2.3% of their income.

We turn now to gradual policy roll-outs. The assumptions we use about these roll-outs are discussed in Box 5.1.

The overall effect of these roll-outs is small compared with that of freezes, and on average they boost incomes for most of the bottom half of the distribution. This is entirely accounted for by the roll-out of universal credit. Following recent reductions in UCs taper rate and increases in its work allowances, UC is now on average more generous than the legacy system. Moreover, some of those who are moved to UC receive transitional protection, meaning that if they would receive less under UC than under the legacy system, they continue to receive their legacy entitlement. The roll-out of UC more than offsets the various other policy roll-outs detailed in Section 5.1, such as the two-child limit and removal of the family premium, increasing incomes for the poorest half of households by an average of 98 per year. The top half of the distribution are barely affected at all by policy roll-outs.

Box 5.1. Policy roll-out modelling assumptions

As discussed in Section 5.1, we model the roll-out of certain policies. This box briefly discusses the methodology we adopt for some of those roll-outs.

Replacement of the legacy benefit system with universal credit. In April 2022, there were 2.6 million claimants still on legacy benefits (Department for Work and Pensions, 2022b). To simulate the taxbenefit system under the scenario where the UC roll-out is halted, we take those who report receiving a legacy benefit in the 201920 FRS data, and randomly move some of them to UC in order to leave 2.6 million still on legacy benefits, with the composition (e.g. 1.2 million claimants of employment and support allowance) reported in Department for Work and Pensions (2022b). Current plans are for no families to be left on legacy benefits in 202526, but some will still be in receipt of transitional protection, which (in the short run) gives them what they would have received under the legacy system. Based on figures from Department for Work and Pensions (2022b) and Office for Budget Responsibility (2018b), we very roughly estimate that 270,000 will still have transitional protection in 202526. To simulate incomes in 202526, we approximate transitional protection by randomly awarding 270,000 legacy-benefits-receiving families, who would be worse off under UC, their legacy entitlement. This is an imperfect approximation as precisely when the family moves affects the transitional protection it receives; in particular, those who transition in April 2023 immediately after benefits rates have significantly increased will receive much more protection than those who transition in March 2023. When simulating 203031 incomes, we assume that transitional protection has expired for all families.

Abolition of work-related activity premium in employment and support allowance and the equivalent in universal credit. Around 160,000 claimants received the premium in November 2021 (DWP Stat-Xplore). The final policy costing (HM Treasury, 2017, table 2.2) suggests that by 202122 the number of claimants with the premium would fall by around 16,000 per year. We assume this rate of change continues to hold going forward, and in accordance randomly remove the premium from those observed receiving it when simulating incomes.

Ending entitlement to pension-age benefits for mixed-age couples. Department for Work and Pensions (2019) suggests that the number of mixed-age couples receiving pension-age benefits will fall by 10,000 per year. When simulating future years incomes, we randomly move such couples observed claiming these benefits onto UC in accordance with this rate of change.

The distribution of impacts across household types is shown in Figure 5A.1 in the appendix. On average, all household types experience income falls of between 3% and 4%. Families with children are particularly hit by benefits freezes, especially lone parents for whom benefits freezes reduce their income by 760 per year, or 2.8% of their income. Freezes in the child benefit taper rates cause couples with children to lose out on 210 per year, whilst lone parents lose on average 33 from this freeze. Income falls for those without children are more driven by tax freezes.

Discretionary tax changes to 202526

In addition to these roll-outs and freezes, two significant discretionary personal tax reforms have been announced. The new Chancellor has announced a plan to reduce the recent NICs rise and scrap the associated health and social care levy, and to cut the basic rate of income tax by 1p in April 2023 (bringing forward by one year a reform announced by the then Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, in March 2022). The proposal to abolish the additional rate of income tax, which would have been a large giveaway to the very richest households, is not included in our analysis given its abandonment on 3 October.

Figure 5.5. Changes in income by decile: freezes, roll-outs and planned discretionary tax changes to 202526

Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

The impact of these changes is shown in Figure 5.5. We show them together as they affect households in roughly similar ways. Together these reforms increase income by 700 per year for an average household. Both changes are regressive, as higher-income households get more of their income from employment. As a consequence, while the richest 10% of households will benefit by 2,290 per year on average, the poorest will benefit by just 13.

Combined with the freezes and policy roll-outs already discussed, the combined impact of all changes to the tax and benefit system by 202526 is broadly regressive. On average, the effect is a drop in income of 750 or 1.7%. It is worth noting that neither in the aggregate, nor for any income decile, do the explicit discretionary policy changes outweigh the impact of gradual roll-outs and freezes. In total, the roll-outs and freezes will reduce household incomes (and strengthen the public finances) by 41 billion in aggregate in 202526, only half of which is offset by the discretionary tax changes.

After 202526 the income tax and NICs freezes are due to end, but the indefinite freezes will of course continue to shape the tax and benefit system, steadily eroding the value of benefits and increasing taxes. The benefits policy roll-outs will also continue. This subsection illustrates how these effects will grow over time by evaluating the impact of adding an additional five years of freezes and roll-outs (which largely complete over this time), combined with the planned changes to the tax system.

Figure 5.6 repeats the analysis in Figure 5.5, but considers the impact in 203031 instead. The combined impact of the freezes, roll-outs and discretionary changes to the tax system is a 2.2% reduction in income for an average household, compared with a 1.7% reduction in 202526. The pattern across the distribution is more strongly regressive, with the poorest tenth of households losing 4.7% of their income and the richest tenth losing only 1.3%. The key reason for this is that the indefinite freezes to benefits are more significant than the indefinite freezes to taxes the benefits takeaway rises from 6 billion to 9 billion from 202526 to 203031, whereas the tax takeaway rises from 4 billion to 5 billion and so in total the indefinite freezes tend to affect poorer households more than richer ones. The removal of transitional protection in UC, and the roll-out of the other benefits policies, also reduce incomes for poorer households. In total, the freezes and policy roll-outs reduce incomes and strengthen the public finances by 47 billion by 203031, of which 20 billion is offset by the two discretionary tax policies.

Figure 5.6. Changes in income by decile, freezes, roll-outs and planned discretionary tax changes to 203031

Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

We now briefly turn to some assessment and policy recommendations based upon the analysis thus far. Our focus here is on freezes and uprating rules.

The large role of freezes in the tax and benefit system is concerning for several reasons. The first is that freezes are hidden and stealthy. They allow the size and shape of the system to change unnoticed, with the government taking more in taxes and giving less in benefits over time, despite the fact that the explicit policy changes planned are giveaways. For example, each year the benefit cap means that the real maximum value of benefits affected families can get declines, and more families are affected but without any explicit intention to this effect. And the real level of earnings one needs to earn to lose the personal allowance declines again, not because of a publicised and intended reform to this effect, but because prices rise while the threshold is frozen. This cannot do much good for transparency and the public debate.

The second reason is that the real impacts of freezes are uncertain. By relying on inflation to discreetly raise revenues and reduce expenditure rather than uprating all parameters by a sensible index, the size and shape of the tax and benefit system are subject to the vagaries of inflation, rather than deliberate choices by policymakers. This is illustrated by the rapid rise in inflation over recent months. Freezes are set to have a far larger effect than was expected a year or so ago. Millions are set to start paying taxes, or pay the higher rate, not by design, but because inflation has been so unexpectedly high. Higher inflation also means that the outlook for inflation is now more uncertain.

Third, freezing also tends to lead to policy uncertainty. Frozen parameters generally cannot realistically last forever. For example, the steady growth of nominal earnings means that more and more people will see their personal allowance tapered away, with no inbuilt limit to this process. It is unlikely that any government would accept such a consequence, and so one day the tapering of the personal allowance will have to be reformed. But when this happens is uncertain, as is the magnitude of any reform. Correcting for the unwelcome effects of freezes thus leads to unexpected lurches in policy.

In view of this, we offer three recommendations, some of which we have touched on above.

First, the government should by default index all taxbenefit parameters to a well-chosen index. There is no good case for the nominal value of these parameters staying fixed for long periods of time. Moreover, even deliberately chosen time-limited freezes beyond a year or so are generally unwise: as seen in the case of income tax and NICs freezes, swings in inflation mean that the size of the takeaway can change vastly from what was intended. If the government wants to raise taxes or cut benefits, it should decide what real value it thinks the parameter in question should be, and not let it be unpredictably buffeted around by inflation.

Governments have of course turned to freezes for a reason to raise tax revenue or reduce benefit expenditure. There is an understandable rationale here freezes allow the maximum improvement in the governments fiscal position without inducing a nominal cash loss for households, which households may strongly object to. But even for a government that does not want to induce nominal losses, there is a way forward: it can specify the change in a threshold or value relative to inflation (or some other index). For example, the government could state that the personal allowance should increase by CPI minus 2% for each of the next three years. It could add that if CPI is below 2% then the personal allowance will be frozen rather than nominally cut, and the cut will be applied in a later year where CPI is above 2%. This approach would allow the government to raise the tax burden (or reduce benefit spending) by as much as desired, with little uncertainty in the real impact of the policy on households, work incentives or the governments finances, and without inducing any nominal income losses.

Second, precisely which index is chosen people can reasonably disagree upon, but it seems that there are two logical extremes. On the one end, it is hard to think of a reason why a parameter should be uprated by less than inflation. A tax threshold that goes up by less than inflation means that higher tax rates will be applied to steadily poorer and poorer people. A benefit that goes up by less than inflation delivers a declining real purchasing power. On the other end, it is hard to think of a reason why a parameter should go up by more than average earnings(or perhaps GDP per capita). A tax threshold that goes up by more than average earnings will tend to raise less and less revenue, eventually becoming irrelevant (at least so long as the base that it applies to goes up, in the long run, at approximately the same speed as average earnings). Spending on a benefit that goes up by more than average earnings will take up a steadily growing part of national income, eventually becoming unsustainable. This is in fact the case with the state pension, which grows at the fastest of earnings growth, inflation and 2.5% (the triple lock). This uprating rule should be ended.

A relevant political economy consideration here is that it is generally easier for governments to (discretionarily) cut taxes and raise benefits than to do the reverse. This potentially creates a danger when combined with a default uprating rule of earnings. To a first approximation, earnings uprating means that tax revenue and benefit expenditure remain constant as a share of national income. If discretionary reforms on average cut taxes and raise benefits relative to default uprating rules, that means there will be a tendency for tax revenue to make up a steadily declining share of national income and benefits a steadily increasing share. Price uprating allows governments to announce giveaways more often than takeaways without putting fiscal sustainability in jeopardy.

More generally, whether a government chooses price uprating, earnings uprating, or something in between, depends upon its political priorities. For example, a government that is concerned about relative poverty, and so wants the living standards of benefit claimants to keep up with those of the rest of society, might uprate benefits by earnings; a government that is primarily concerned about absolute poverty might choose prices. One option the government should stay away from, however, is RPI uprating (the default uprating rules for duties). RPI is not a National Statistic, and CPI is a superior measure of inflation.

Third, there should be an internal coherence to uprating rules. Uprating, for example, the income tax higher-rate threshold by prices but freezing the point at which the personal allowance is withdrawn means that the former gets steadily closer to the latter, changing (without deliberate policymaker intervention) the shape of the marginal tax rate system. The same problem would occur if the higher-rate threshold went up with average earnings but the personal allowance withdrawal threshold went up with prices. Similarly, the benefit cap should be indexed to the same series as basic benefit entitlements. Uprating the latter by more than the former means that the cap bites more and more over time, as (pre-cap) benefit entitlements grow relative to the cap. The government does not have to choose the same uprating rule for all parameters, but within one part of the system (e.g. income tax) the strong presumption should be for the same index to be used across the board.

Planned discretionary reforms to taxes are returning money to households, with the richest gaining the most. But at the same time, freezes to tax and benefit parameters are significantly and stealthily changing the scope and size of taxes and benefits over time. As prices increase, they drag more people into the tax system and into higher rates of tax, increasing the tax burden, while eroding the value of benefits and reducing the number of people eligible.

The magnitude of these subtle changes should not be understated, as they more than cancel out the impact of the two high-profile explicit policy reforms the planned cuts to the rates of National Insurance and income tax. For every 1 households on average will gain from these planned tax cuts in 202526, they will lose 2 as a result of policy roll-outs and freezes to tax and benefit parameters. Overall, the progressive effect of freezes and policy roll-outs is more than outweighed by the impact of the discretionary tax changes, making the combined impact of changes to the system broadly regressive.

The government should by default index all taxbenefit parameters to a well-chosen index, and it should avoid long freezes, ideally never announcing a freeze that runs for more than one year hence. That there appears to be an increasing trend of introducing new parameters to the system that are by default frozen, and a greater tendency to use time-limited (but quite long) freezes to existing parameters, smacks of lazy policymaking and is concerning. The government should kick this habit. If it wants to raise taxes or cut benefits, it should tell us what real value it thinks the parameter in question should be, and not let it be unpredictably buffeted around by inflation.

Figure 5A.1. Changes in income by household type: freezes and roll-outs to 202526

Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

Figure 5A.2. Changes in income by household type, freezes and roll-outs to 203031

Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

Table 5A.1. Exchequer impact of policy measures

Note: We have not included a reversal of the public sector offset in the calculation of the impact of the reversal of the health and social care levy.Source: Authors calculations using the FRS 201920 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

Adam, S. and Johnson, P., 2019. Dragging people into higher rates of tax. Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Report, https://ifs.org.uk/publications/dragging-people-higher-rates-tax.

Bank of England, 2022. Monetary Policy Report August 2022. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-report/2022/august-2022.

Follow this link:

Reforms, roll-outs and freezes in the tax and benefit system | Institute for Fiscal Studies - ifs.org.uk

Kwarteng 'to bring forward planned 23 November fiscal statement'

In another reversal, the Guardian understands Kwasi Kwarteng will speed up plans for a new fiscal statement, expected to be focussed on spending and deregulation.

It will now take place later this month, rather than 23 November, accompanied by new forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, in another move designed to restore market stability.

Updated at 15.25EDT

Key events

A summary of today's developments

Kwarteng 'to bring forward planned 23 November fiscal statement'

UK's first prototype nuclear fusion power station to be built by 2040

Government announces it will replace GDPR rules

Rees-Mogg: if people want to call me Tory scum, I dont mind.

Badenoch urges Tories to unite behind Truss, and to express concerns in private, not through media

Lockdown at Tory conference lifted after security alert lasting around 90 minutes

Kwarteng's speech - verdict from Twitter commentariat

Kwasi Kwarteng's speech - snap verdict

Kwarteng pledges to review, replace or repeal retained EU law 'holding our country back'

Kwarteng dismisses row generated by 45% tax plan as 'a little turbulence'

Kwarteng starts his speech to Tory conference

Rees-Mogg claims 45% tax rate U-turn not significant

Truss picked cronies off backbenches for cabinet, says Heseltine

Irish PM Michel Martin says Steve Baker's Brexit apology to EU and Ireland 'very, very helpful'

Why Tory rebels could find it harder to defeat PM over benefits or spending cuts

Schools minister confirms intention to lift ban on new grammar schools in England before election

Kwarteng set to address Tory conference with his authority on the line after 45% tax rate U-turn

UK and EU to resume technical talks on Northern Ireland protocol this week

Even with tax U-turn, richest families still gain 40 times as much as poorest ones from mini-budget, says thinktank

Labour says it would be 'grotesque' not to increase benefits in line with inflation

Former DWP secretary Esther McVey says it would be 'huge mistake' not to raise benefits in line with cost of living

Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries says Truss should call election if she wants mandate for new agenda

Tory mayor Ben Houchen says U-turn on 45% tax rate does not wholly solve problem because 'damage is already done'

No 10 says Truss still has confidence in chancellor

Gove says he's now willing to vote for mini-budget - but still unhappy about prospect of benefits not rising with inflation

Fracking 'not going to happen' because communities don't support it, says Damian Green

Liz Truss needs six to 12 months of hard work 'to persuade public she's competent', says Damian Green

TUC accuses Truss of breaking promise not to return to austerity

45% tax rate U-turn will have 'essentially no effect on fiscal sustainability' of mini-budget, says IFS

Tory donor criticises tax U-turn, saying it's wrong being governed by media reaction 'which is not necessarily rational'

UK government bonds strengthen after tax U-turn

Kwarteng claims he feels 'humility and contrition' over 45% top rate of tax U-turn

Kwarteng rules out giving departments 18bn needed to compensate for higher than expected inflation

Kwarteng dismisses suggestion that Truss was blaming him for 45p plan in her BBC interview yesterday

Labour says the U-turn is too late, because the mini-budget is already leading to higher mortgates

Kwarteng says it was mistake attending champagne reception for Tory donors on day of mini-budget

Kwarteng rejects claims that it was plan to abolish 45% rate that triggered need for 65bn Bank of England intervention

Kwarteng suggests Truss took decision to perform U-turn

'Not at all' - Kwarteng says he has not considered resigning over 45% top rate tax policy

Kwarteng tells BBC Breakfast that 45p plan a 'distraction' from 'good set of policies'

Kwarteng confirms U-turn on abolition of 45% top rate of tax, saying plan was 'distraction' and 'we get it'

How Liz Truss said she was absolutely committed to abolishing 45% top rate of tax yesterday

Truss expected to abandon plan to abolish 45% top rate of income tax

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, said the government has abandoned the plan in the mini-budget to abolish the 45% top rate of income tax. He claimed the proposal has become a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing our country. Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, says the U-turn has come too late, because the mini-budget is already leading to higher mortgages for families.

In another reversal, the Guardian understands Kwasi Kwarteng will speed up plans for a new fiscal statement, expected to be focussed on spending and deregulation. It will now take place later this month, rather than November 23, accompanied by new forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, in another move designed to restore market stability.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced the UKs first prototype nuclear fusion power station will be built in Nottinghamshire by 2040.

The government will be replacing GDPR (general data protection regulation) with our own business and consumer friendly British data protection system, culture secretary Michelle Donelan announced.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has declared if people want to call me Tory scum, I dont mind. He told the Tory conference: I wanted to thank you for giving me almost a warmer welcome as I got outside the hall. But I think thats rather marvelous, I happen to think that having a democracy where you can actually walk through the streets and people can exercise their right to peaceful protest shows the strength of our society. And if people really want to call me Tory scum, I dont mind.

The Conservative party conference centre was locked down for about an hour and a half due to a security scare. Police locked all entrances and exits at about 3.30pm with ministers among those forced to wait outside. The lockdown caused widespread disruption to events inside and outside the conference venue, which is being held at Birminghams International Convention Centre. The type of the security scare is unknown.

Liz Truss packed her cabinet with cronies off the backbenches rather than competent ministers with a range of views, and appeared to have no coherent plan behind her mini-budget, Michael Heseltine said.

Schools minister Jonathan Gullis has told a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference he is hoping that legislation to lift the current ban on new grammar schools in England will be brought forward before the next election. Gullis, a former teacher who has campaigned to scrap the ban and allow more grammar schools in England, told an Education Policy Institute event there was no date set and he didnt know if it would be in this parliamentary session.

Downing Street said Liz Truss still has confidence in the chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. At the lobby briefing in London, asked if Truss has confidence in her chancellor, the prime ministers spokesperson told reporters: Yes.

Updated at 16.05EDT

Senior Conservative officials have accused West Midlands police of failing to do enough to keep protesters away from delegates at the party conference, a leaked letter reveals.

The disclosure comes just hours after the police were forced to lock down the conference in central Birmingham for several hours after a security scare. Police say they have been shortchanged by over 500,000 on the costs of keeping the conference in Birmingham secure.

Jake Berry, the Conservative party chair, and Darren Mott, party chief executive, sent a letter on Sunday evening to the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands raising serious concerns over security around the conference.

A new poll shows Labour leads by 28% over the Conservatives.

In another reversal, the Guardian understands Kwasi Kwarteng will speed up plans for a new fiscal statement, expected to be focussed on spending and deregulation.

It will now take place later this month, rather than 23 November, accompanied by new forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, in another move designed to restore market stability.

Updated at 15.25EDT

A Conservative Treasury minister and one of Liz Trusss major campaign donors said they would like to abolish inheritance tax, as they urged her to continue with her politically brave agenda for wealth creation.

Andrew Griffith, a City minister under Kwasi Kwarteng, said tax was not his policy area but inheritance tax would be his top choice for a tax to abolish.

Michael Spencer, a Tory peer and City financier who gave 25,0000 to Trusss leadership campaign, also backed abolishing inheritance tax, saying it was causing wealthy people to move abroad as non-doms, and scrapping tax on share trading.

Here is a montage of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwartengs comments before the income tax U-turn.

Kemi Badenoch urged her colleagues to have dissent in a grown-up fashion, instead of rushing to the first TV studio when they have an issue with government policy.

The International trade secretary took part in a question and answer session with GB News Liam Halligan on the main stage of the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, where she spoke about the recent blue-on-blue attacks.

Asked how the party can communicate effectively the growth plan to the country, Ms Badenoch spoke about the need for unity and to get behind the Prime Minister.

She said that if people have problems with government policy, there is a way of communicating dissent that does not involve rushing to the first TV studio to let everybody know how angry you are.

Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng decried the hullabaloo about his mini-budget as he noted the market reactions and the excitement that led to his U-turn on axing the top rate of income tax.

He acknowledged the extraordinary events of the last 10 days and recent months in a brief speech at a PolicyExchange drinks reception at the Tory party conference.

Beyond the market reactions and the excitement, theres a real strong body of ideas there which are all about growth, he said.

Kwarteng added despite the hullabaloo about my statement, business people had praised his plan for growth.

Here is Jacob Rees-Moggs remarks that he would be delighted for his back garden to be fracked, as he risked deepening divisions within the Conservative party by deriding those who oppose the controversial practice as socialists.

Nick Timothy, who was chief of staff to Theresa May, believes it will be very, very difficult for Liz Truss to recover from the position shes in.

He believes the PM and Kwasi Kwarteng have dug themselves in an absolutely enormous hole.

Timothy told LBCs Tonight with Andrew Marr: I think its very, very difficult to recover from the position shes in.

I think anybody who makes the assumption that therefore she might be removed or have to leave as PM, I think is over-egging it at this stage.

But theyve dug themselves in an absolutely enormous hole and its going to be very difficult to get out of it.

Truss added she wants a settlement with the EU over the Northern Ireland Protocol which works for everybody.

She said she can see no reason why an Assembly and Executive cannot be re-established now at Stormont.

Asked if an election would be called if the Stormont powersharing institutions are not restored by October 28, Truss replied: Yes, there will.

Liz Truss said Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker was speaking for himself when he apologised for his previous ferocious stance on negotiations with the EU.

In an interview with UTV, the prime minister said: Steve speaks for himself.

I think we have a very good relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I have had a very good meeting with the Taoiseach (Micheal Martin) talking about the future.

I want to work constructively with the Republic of Ireland and the EU as well as all the parties in Northern Ireland.

Steve speaks from his own personal experience being deeply involved in the Brexit debate, but he speaks for the whole Government in that we absolutely want to find a negotiated solution to deal with the issues of the Northern Ireland Protocol and work with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.

The author of a controversial government report which claimed that Britain was no longer a place where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities has told an event at the Tory Party conference that the left has to take responsibility for what he described as the weaponisation of race.

Dr Tony Sewell, who was the chair of the governments commission on race and ethnic disparities, told the fringe event that the bodys report had been misrepresented by people who had not read it and who, he claimed, had claimed him a race denier.

What I am trying to say is that the weaponisation of this today is based on a simplification, he said, adding that white guilt was also part of this.

The result of laws and the atmosphere created by this, Sewell claimed, was that black people ended up being feeling restricted and believed that there needed to be safe spaces. He gave the example of walking clubs in which people from ethnic minorities came together.

Slowly the weaponisation comes in to restrict you and I do think that some people on the left have to take responsibility for this, he added.

When it was published in 2021, academics pulled apart claims in Sewells report that teaching about Britains colonial past should include material that speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering, but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a remodelled African/Britain.

Among other critics, Doreen Lawrence, who campaigned for justice for 18 years after the murder of her son Stephen by racists, warned that the report risked pushing the fight against racism back 20 years or more for undermining the existence of structural racism.

Read the rest here:

Kwasi Kwarteng to bring forward planned fiscal statement in another U-turn as it happened - The Guardian

In the lead-up to chancellor Kwasi Kwartengs first fiscal statement, or mini-budget, on Friday 23 September, I had three main requests for prime minister Liz Trusss new government when it came to the IT sector. These were:

Leaving aside the volatile market reaction to the contents of the mini-budget, the following is my assessment of how the fiscal statement addresses my three requests for this new government, and its broader impact on the health of our sector at large. Truss said she was going for growth, but how will this budget deliver growth to the UK tech sector?

The most notable of all of Kwartengs announcements was his pledge to scrap the 2017 and 2021 IR35 reforms. He didnt just hint at addressing the ambiguity of how suppliers are assessed for IR35 or promise to review IR35 he simply declared that the off-payroll working rules will be repealed from 6 April 2023.

This was the announcement we were hoping for, but I have to say I wasnt expecting anything as definitive as this. Like many others, we have been warning about the disastrous impact of IR35 on the UKs technology leadership, with the most recent reforms of 2017 and 2021 effectively forcing SMEs out of existing, viable projects and driving up the overall cost of transformation projects for everyone.

The sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach of IR35 resulted in many organisations simply closing their doors to SMEs altogether. For a moment in April 2022, our consultancy was one of these SMEs after our longest-standing client (a very well-known government agency) suddenly instigated a blanket ban on SMEs due to its fear of IR35 enforcement action by HM Revenue & Customs.

This was despite us (and many of our peers) already being engaged in extensive, mission-critical and multi-year digital transformation projects and having proven our outside-IR35 status on multiple occasions.

While we were lucky enough to receive a reprieve on this extension (after extensive negotiations and the direct support of our customer), other SMEs have not been so lucky. Some projects were simply closed down because there was no one left to continue them, resulting in years of investment going down the drain.

The announcement to scrap the 2017 and 2021 reforms is a big win for the public sector, private sector, and the many thousands of contractors who work for them, so I welcome their abolition. It has also helped to clarify the governments position on SMEs in its supply chain where the governments statements in support of SMEs have often clashed with reality on the ground.

We previously called on the public sector to reduce its reliance on large consulting firms for its digital transformation projects. Despite many declarations that it wants to engage with SMEs in this area, the truth is that the public sector still relies on the same large consultants it always has done, who roll out the same flawed strategies that fail to meaningfully transform the public sector and only serve to make it more reliant on outside help.

While the budget wasnt necessarily the right place to address this, the IR35 reforms will go a long way to rectifying this situation.

Romy Hughes is a director of change management consultancy Brightman.

See more here:

IR35 reforms repeal: How it stands to benefit the tech sectors SMEs and contractors - ComputerWeekly.com

To quote that timeless sage Yogi Berra, The future aint what it used to be. Just last week, a House committee hearing on abortion restrictions took an unexpected turn Thursday when a Democratic witness who works for Planned Parenthood testified that men can become pregnant. Dr. Bhavik Kumar, medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, replied in the affirmative after being asked by Rep. Andrew Clyde, Georgia Republican, if men could become pregnant. So men can have pregnancies, especially trans men, Dr. Kumar told the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Wait, what? If I would have written, posted or even said aloud what I just wrote 10 years ago I wouldnt have believed my own words!

Lets not forget a recent confirmation hearing in the United States Senate. A United States Supreme Court Justice nominee could not define what a woman is? Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council said, Regardless of how Ketanji Brown Jacksons confirmation hearings go, its safe to say theyll be remembered for one thing: her inability (or outright refusal) to define the word woman. Jacksons Im-not-a-biologist answer has been memed, parodied, and mocked the world over. But its also, one news outlet warns, contagious. Just how deep does this gender illiteracy go? To quote Yogi again, Youve got to be very careful if you dont know where you are going, because you might not get there.

And thats not all folks! Ben Johnson, senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand writes, A group of social justice warriors intent on subjecting the U.S. military to extreme left-wing ideology has come perilously close to taking down military institutions, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned on Monday. These social justice warriors that are inside the gates, that are inside our bureaucracies, are working to undermine these institutions, said Pompeo on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins Monday. I saw it in my time of service as Secretary of State and as CIA director in the Trump administration.

I think it is an attempt by the progressive Left to undermine one more central institution. They came for our universities. They came for our K-12 schools. Theyre doing it in our churches and synagogues, Pompeo told Perkins. The military represents just another place that theyre coming after the Judeo-Christian Christian heritage of our country Pompeo concludes, Youve got to raise up a new breed, a new generation of battle-hardened leaders who focus on the men and the mission, not just a woke agenda

In C.S. Lewiss great and timeless work, The Abolition of Man, is a timely observance of where the future will take us on the current course. In this masterfully written literary critique of a childrens book, he shares his deep concerns of the implications in what he sensed was the beginning of an endless stream of objectivism And all the timesuch is the tragi-comedy of our situationwe continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more drive, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or creativity. In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. Pretty good read on where we are today dont you think?

Michael Knowles in his book Speechless, controlling words controlling minds takes a long and detailed look at the heart and the manipulation of language. He explores the history of political correctness beginning in the 1920s with leftist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci to critical theorists and second wave feminism. He writes, Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School helped lead to woke ideology spread through academia in the fields of Womens Studies, Black Studies, and Queer Studies, each dedicated to tearing down the old oppressive standards of speech and replacing them with standards that enforce their worldview. The success of this movement is keenly felt in todays political controversies, whether its the debate over critical race theory in schools, censorship on social media, or the fight for fairness in womens sports. As G.K. Chesterton observed, Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in the summer.

I am reminded of the words of Peter as he wrote to early Christians, For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Truth still matters to God, and it must matter to us! Unbelievable as current affairs have become, there can be no hesitation for those who love God and love America. The prophet Jeremiah said, But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. Jeremiah understood the times and acted accordingly, so must we!

Throckmorton

Read the original here:

The Future of Truth - Portsmouth Daily Times

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced the New York State Canal Corporation has named one of their vessels the Harriet Tubman in honor of the famed American abolitionist and humanitarian's inspirational life and legacy. In the bicentennial year of Harriet Tubman's birth, the Canal Corporation dedicated the previously unnamed push tugboat at a ceremony along the Genesee River spur of the Erie Canal in Rochester, not far from abolitionist's home and final resting place in Auburn near the Finger Lakes.

"New York shines as a beacon of freedom and human rights for the rest of the nation, and our history is filled with iconic women - like Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and Edie Windsor, to name a few - who have made great personal sacrifice to strengthen the rights and freedoms of others," Governor Hochul said. "As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Harriet Tubman's birth, it is our honor to recognize her commitment as a self-sacrificing abolitionist, suffragist, Civil War hero, and nurse who made meaningful and lasting contributions to our state and America's history. By naming a vessel in her honor, we are uplifting her story of great sacrifice and the unique role that our state's canals played as part of the Underground Railroad."

Tubman, a leading figure of the Underground Railroad movement who helped free dozens of enslaved people, made several trips along the canal corridor, where the Erie, Champlain, Oswego and Cayuga-Seneca Canals provided an accessible route to Canada for many Freedom Seekers.

New York Power Authority Interim President and CEO Justin E. Driscoll said, "It is an enormous honor to commemorate Harriet Tubman's lifelong bravery and sacrifice through the naming of this vessel that works each day on the waterways that provided a path to freedom for so many. Harriet Tubman is undoubtedly one of the world's most storied human rights icons and this recognition celebrates her connection to our state and, specifically, the canal corridor."

New York State Canal Corporation Director Brian U. Stratton said, "Harriet Tubman is one of the most crucial figures in our history, and her brave contributions add to the rich history of the canalway. Today, we celebrate her life and legacy, as well as the role of the canal in the abolition movement, broadening the lens through which we understand the importance of this piece of our state's history."

At their September meeting, the New York Power Authority and Canal Corporation Board of Trustees voted to name this previously unnamed push tugboat in honor of Harriet Tubman who devoted her life to social activism and human rights. The 2019 vessel is stationed along the Erie Canal at the Canal Corporation's maintenance facility in Lyons, Wayne County. When working on the canal, the tugboat pushes other non-motorized vessels during transit. These vessels include derrick boats, dredges, and scows that are essential for performing routine canal operations such as dredging, buoy placement, debris removal, and transit of materials.

Great, Great, Great Niece of Harriet Tubman and Rochester resident Geraldine Howard shared the following quote of her aunt's, "There was one of two things I had a right to, Liberty or death: if I could not have one, I would have the other - for no man should take me alive; I should fight for my liberty as long as my strength lasted, and when the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me."

Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Celebration Program Director and Rochester resident Jacqueline Sprague said, "The Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Commission celebrates the spirit of collaboration with the Canal Corporation as they name one of their push boats after Harriet Tubman. We are working together to ensure her life and legacy are remembered, and that her story and work can continue to shape our present and future - whenever people see the Harriet Tubman at work on the canal, we hope that they'll think of this trailblazing abolitionist, and how with a spirit of determination and collaboration, she was able lead many lives to freedom."

New York Secretary of State Robert J. Rodriguez said, "From its connection to the abolitionist movement in Auburn to the origins of the women's suffrage movement in nearby Seneca Falls, the Erie Canal's rich heritage continues to inspire us to greater heights and achievements in so many ways. The Canal's past has become a catalyst for renewed growth and prosperity, as we reinvigorate the twenty canal communities that have received Downtown Revitalization grants, including Rochester."

State Senator Jeremy Cooney said, "Harriet Tubman's contributions to ending the horrors of slavery in America warrant this esteemed recognition. The Greater Rochester region was fortunate to have Ms. Tubman as a community leader and tireless advocate for civil rights. I'm grateful to the NYS Canal Corporation and the Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Commission for recognizing her enduring legacy on one of New York's most iconic waterways."

State Senator Samra Brouk said, "Harriet Tubman was one of our greatest Americans, and it is fitting that we continue to find ways to honor her legacy and uplift her life's work as an inspiration for others. I commend the Canal Corporation as they christen a push tug in Harriet Tubman's name, and may we continue to find ways large and small to illuminate the work of those Americans who embody the highest of our ideals."

Assemblymember Michaelle C. Solages, Chair of the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus, said, "As we celebrate the bicentennial year of Harriet Tubman's birth, I thank Governor Houchl for leading our State in recognizing her life. This vessel will be a daily reminder that the journey to freedom is long and everlasting. It is incumbent upon us to continue to honor her legacy as well as acknowledge the triumphs and struggles of Black New Yorkers throughout history."

Assemblymember Demond Meeks said, "The legacy of American Civil Rights is the legacy of the city of Rochester. As we work towards revitalizing our city, it is essential that the people of Rochester recognize the lives and lessons of its past. Harriet Tubman's profound influence on the history of our country and our community is beyond measure. It is a privilege to commemorate her legacy today. Thank you to Jacqueline Sprague, the Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Commission, and the New York State Canal Corporation for spearheading this initiative."

Assemblymember Harry Bronson said, "There were no limits to Harriett Tubman's courage, compassion and bravery. Simply no limits. We are here today, next to the Erie Canal, a waterway that played a significant role in the Underground Railroad, to honor Harriet Tubman. This is a joyous occasion and a meaningful tribute to what is right and good in America. Today, we honor what we all should aspire to be - - to be like Harriet Tubman, a noble warrior for social justice and humanity, a believer in dignity for all."

Assemblymember Sarah Clark said, "I'm honored to join today's ceremony honoring Harriet Tubman, a trailblazer who defines courage and strength. As we prepare for the 200th anniversary of the Erie Canal in 2025 and celebrate advancements like the new tugboats of today, we are privileged to have historical icons like Tubman to inspire us. Thank you to Jacqueline Sprague and the Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Commission, and all the community partners and stakeholders for bringing this exciting moment to reality."

Assemblymember Jen Lunsford said, "The naming of this new Canal push tugboat in honor of the great Harriet Tubman is particularly meaningful this year as we celebrate the bicentennial of her birth. This is such a meaningful and beautiful way to celebrate her courageous life in Western New York, home to some of the most beautiful canal towns in the state, two of which I am deeply proud to have in my new district, Fairport and Pittsford. This is yet another way to honor and remember a true American heroine, an abolitionist, suffragist and humanitarian activist in the place she chose to call home. I am honored to be here and celebrate Harriet Tubman's life and legacy in our region."

Monroe County Executive Adam Bello said, "Harriet Tubman's bravery, conviction and endless fight for equality will forever be an inspiration to us all. The New York State Canal Corporation's naming of a push tug in her honor is fitting as Harriet Tubman shepherded freedom seekers along the state's Canal system, providing safe passage to men and women escaping enslavement. We honor our past by remembering those who risked everything to build the future, by saying their names and by telling their stories. We will always cherish Harriet Tubman's legacy as we continue to fight every day for equity, dignity and justice."

Rochester Mayor Malik D. Evans said, "In many African American spirituals, a code word for escaping from slavery to freedom was to cross the River Jordan. We have our own River Jordan here in the Canal system, which Harriet Tubman used to bring enslaved people to safety, often on the way to Canada. So, I think it is not only appropriate, but important, to honor that history with a boat named after Tubman. In spirit, she can continue to ply our waterways and remind us of those who risked their lives to ensure a path to freedom."

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Executive Director Bob Radliff said, "On the 200th anniversary of her birth, we are honored to join the NYS Canal Corporation in recognizing Harriet Tubman's profound contributions to our Nation. Her indomitable spirit continues to inspire and call us to create a future of greater equality and opportunity."

The naming of the Harriet Tubman followed the biennial New York State Canal Conference in Rochester, coinciding with Rochester's ROC the Riverway celebration which included a range of diverse exhibits and events this fall.

More:

Governor Hochul Names Canal Corporation Vessel in Honor of the Inspirational Life and Legacy of Harriet Tubman - ny.gov

RALEIGH Ive been writing a newspaper column since 1986. During that time, Ive had occasion to criticize the policies of six North Carolina governors: Jim Martin, Jim Hunt, Mike Easley, Beverly Perdue, Pat McCrory, and Roy Cooper.

None has seen fit to have me flogged. An ancestor of mine, William Pendley, wasnt so lucky.

Some years ago I wrote a book about the ancestry of my late father, Harold Hood. A native of Caldwell County, he had deep roots in the Carolina mountains. Most of his family arrived in what are now Caldwell, Burke, Wilkes, Ashe, and Watauga counties during the 18th century. While his Hood line was originally Dutch and Scandinavian, my fathers other ancestors were primarily Scotch-Irish, along with English and a smattering of French, German, Italian, and (probably) African.

Most of his English progenitors arrived in the New World before 1700. In what might be considered a sign of things to come, many were getting away from authority figures they didnt like. Our ancestry includes Puritans escaping religious persecution to settle in New England, Cavaliers escaping Puritan persecution to settle in Virginia, and assorted malcontents escaping political enemies to settle in the mid-Atlantic colonies.

Among the latter was William Pendley although, technically speaking, he wasnt fleeing his own enemies. He was fleeing those of his master, Walter Broadhurst.

Broadhurst was the scion of a wealthy Catholic family. Seeking freedom and fortune in the New World, Broadhurst arrived in Baltimore in 1639 with Pendley as a servant. Although poor enough to have to sell his services in exchange for passage, Pendley was literate and intelligent. During his service to Broadhurst and another prominent Maryland citizen, Dr. Thomas Gerard, Pendley occasionally even acted as an attorney handling some local legal and land disputes.

The 1640s constituted a tumultuous time in Maryland politics. Lord Leonard Calvert, a Catholic and the colonys first proprietary governor, originally tried to rule Maryland with an iron fist. Provoking a violent response from the population, Calvert then yielded authority to a colonial assembly. As the English Civil War approached, Calvert attempted to keep Maryland neutral. It didnt work. A Protestant revolt forced Calvert, his family, and his religious and political allies to flee to Virginia for a couple of years.

Pendley, my 9th-great grandfather, was among them. He was married by then and at least one of his children was born in Northampton County, Virginia. Records show that he spent several years in Virginia, performing legal services and serving on juries.

Lord Calvert returned to power in Maryland in 1646, then died a year later. On his deathbed, Calvert appointed Thomas Greene as his successor. But Greenes tenure lasted less than a year. The next governor, the Protestant William Stone, was less to William Pendleys liking, it seems.

The court record reports that in early 1649, Pendley gave a speech at the home of a certain John Hallowes at which he reviled Gov. Stone and his policies. Pendley said he regretted returning to Maryland in support of the government, that hed rather have stayed in Virginia, and indeed that hed rather have gathered oysters for a living than do any service for the governor.

Pendley was arrested and charged with sedition. A Maryland court convicted him and sentenced him to be imprisoned and whipped with 20 lashes. Within a few weeks, Pendley was dead at the shockingly young age of 30 most likely as a result of his flogging by the colonial authorities.

According to my ancestral studies, there were many other opinionated troublemakers in my family tree. Another 9th-great grandfather, John Tully, was one of colonial Americas first publishers of editorials. And several Quaker forebears espoused and advanced the cause of abolition, one provoking a major court case in Virginia over the right to liberate slaves.

As far as I can tell, however, only one of my ancestors, William Pendley, was beaten to death for expressing his opinion. Puts things in perspective, doesnt it?

See more here:

John Hood: Don't That Just Beat All? Neuse News - Neuse News

Conservative MPs are warning of a backlash after threats they could lose the whip if they vote against the abolition of the 45p tax rate, with at least 14 MPs publicly expressing concern about the plans to cut taxes and slash spending.

Jake Berry, the Conservative party chair, sparked anger among colleagues on Sunday when he said MPs would be expected to back the tax measures or would no longer be allowed to sit as Conservatives.

Asked on Skys Sophy Ridge on Sunday show if MPs would lose the whip for opposing the budget, Berry said: Yes, correct. That is a decision for the chief whip but as far as Im concerned, yes.

One Tory MP said Berrys comments risked breaking the dam and forcing more MPs out into the open against the abolition of the 45p top rate of tax or against the wider idea of unfunded borrowing to pay for tax cuts.

Another called it very provocative and very silly, saying it gives colleagues an excuse to move in numbers, especially those in marginal seats.

At least 14 MPs have broken cover to criticise the plans, though many more are expressing private scepticism.

The former levelling up secretary Michael Gove told Liz Truss to change course over some of her tax cuts or risk them being voted down in the Commons, saying her plans as they stood were not Conservative.

Speaking at the party conference, Gove said he was going to have a conversation within the party and the country about what to do next, refusing to rule out voting against the budgetary measures.

But rebel MPs will not get an opportunity to test support for the controversial measures for many months. No 10 is now understood to be planning a vote on the tax cuts in March, likely after a spring Budget. The only immediate legislation needed is on stamp duty and abolishing the national insurance rise, which Tory MPs will back.

Other MPs have also hinted at a deep unease about spending cuts which ministers have suggested they need to balance tax cuts, including the former cabinet minister Damian Green.

Julian Smith, the former chief whip, responded directly to Berry, saying: The first job of an MP is to act in the interest of their constituents and in the national interest. We cannot clap for carers one month and cut tax for millionaires months later.

Green, the former cabinet minister who chairs the One Nation group of Conservative MPs, told a rally that the group had work to do to make the argument to change course, including on spending and levelling up.

Green said the Conservative party should always be about helping people make the most of opportunities whatever their background I think thats moral, right and I also think its a political no brainer. If we end up painting ourselves as the party of the rich and the party of the already successful, then funnily enough most people wont vote for us.

He added: If that takes strong voices being used over the coming months, then I and many colleagues in parliament will not be backward in using those voices. We are at the early stages of this discussion.

Others who have publicly urged a rethink include Northern Ireland select committee chair, Simon Hoare, and justice committee chair, Bob Neill.

Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, said the plans had led to an increase in our deficit, inflation and interest rates, very tough market reaction without OBR support and spending cuts to come. Government this week should push tax cuts for the best off into the long grass.

Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you through the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning

Steve Brine, a former health minister, wrote on Facebook that to cut the top rate of tax was tin-eared and extremely politically naive I know there are many here that would benefit from the reduced top rate who dont want it and that speaks volumes.

Other MPs who reflected stirrings of backbench unease about the governments mini-budget included the Ashfield MP, Lee Anderson, who said the optics were not good around the mini-budget.

People in this country voted Conservative for the very first time, and theyre still a little bit dubious about us. They lent their vote to us, he told a fringe meeting while declining to answer a question about whether he would vote against the governments plans.

Another backbencher, Danny Kruger, said the government should not now take an axe to public spending or benefits in order to balance the books we need to be supporting families and communities.

A number of other MPs said they were deliberating over whether to go public with their criticisms, but most said they believed a U-turn would come before inflicting a defeat became necessary.

One former cabinet minister said there was enough support in the party to vote to defeat the measures, but said they predicted the government would change course.

An MP said Truss would realise that a U-turn was the only route to political survival.

Shes like a shark, they said. You dont get through the last three administrations and come out on top the other side unless youre willing to do whatever it takes to survive. She will realise the writings on the wall the only question is how quickly.

Another Tory MP who is a member of the government said it was possible the administration could face a defeat on the budget and find out the hard way what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

View post:

Tory MPs hit back after threats issued to those opposing 45p tax rate abolition - The Guardian

There is no hole deep enough that a Conservative minister cannot muster the spadework to excavate it to even greater depths. No sooner had Kwasi Kwarteng announced that he was dropping his proposed reduction in the upper rate of income tax, than Andrew Griffith, one of his ministers at the Treasury, declared that he would like to see inheritance tax abolished. I have lots of my fantastic local association [members] with me here and they will know because they asked me at my selection meeting 27 months ago which tax, if I had the choice, I would most like to see eliminated. History will record it was inheritance tax, he told Conservative party conference.

Dropping the 45 pence tax rate to 40 pence was at least the right policy, albeit at the wrong time it was politically explosive at a moment when you are demanding that workers make do with below-inflation pay rises. Abolishing inheritance tax would be damaging for the Tories at any time. I dont doubt that inheritance tax is unpopular among those who are in line to receive large legacies. But among young voters without wealthy parents, who have already seen their chances of owning their own home destroyed by the ever-greater concentration of property wealth in the hands of a lucky few? Reducing income tax whether it be the top rate or basic rate is about rewarding work. All that would be achieved by abolishing inheritance tax, by contrast, would be to reward good fortune. And no, I dont accept Milton Friedmans argument that inheritance tax would destroy the incentive to work because no one would want to invest on a horizon beyond their own lifetime. That might be an argument against inheritance tax set at punitive levels, but not one set at similar levels to income tax.

Griffith and any other Tory tempted to press for the abolition of inheritance tax needs to study the age profile of his voters. Why is it that only 30 per cent of 30-to-39-year-oldsvoted Conservative in the 2019 general election? This is a group well beyond rebellious youth; they are people who are settling down, building careers, and raising families or rather they would be if they could afford a decent home. A large part of the reason why so many of this age group are unable to do so is that their parents generation is clinging onto property, much of it acquired through inheritance. Younger people have been condemned to become their buy-to-let tenants. No wonder they are no longer attracted to the party of capitalism and the free market.

Far from abolishing inheritance tax, the Conservatives should be increasing it. Or rather they should abolish inheritance tax as a tax on estates and tax the recipientsinstead.Inherited capital and income should be treated exactly as any other kind of capital and income, taxed at 0 per cent, basic rate or upper rate depending on how much money was being inherited. That would be fair and enhance incentives to work. No longer would the children of wealthy parents be able to acquire, as they can now, a million-pound family home without paying a penny in tax. (In the case of a family home the threshold rises to 500,000, which can be added to your partner's 500,000 allowance to enable a million pound home to be passed on for nothing.)If the children of wealthy parents wanta fancy home, they would have to build their own careers instead.

More here:

Scrapping inheritance tax is a terrible idea - The Spectator

Rachel Reeves has declared that the mini-Budget shows that the governments instincts were to cut taxes for the wealthiest after Kwasi Kwarteng announced a U-turn on plans to scrap the top rate of income tax.

The Chancellor said in a statement today: It is clear that the abolition of the 45p tax rate has become a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing our country. As a result, Im announcing we are not proceeding with the abolition of the 45p tax rate. We get it, and we have listened.

Following the announcement, the Shadow Chancellor told Sky News: The mini-Budget showed what their instincts were. Their instincts were to cut taxes for the wealthiest in society paid for by borrowing which, in the end, current and future taxpayers will have to pay for.

It was obvious they werent going to get this through the House of Commons. They were forced into this screeching U-turn. But so much damage has already been done, with higher government borrowing costs and huge worries for people about how theyre going to afford their mortgages.

The Labour frontbencher said: The idea that the government can afford to give tax cuts to the wealthiest but not uprate benefits in line with inflation, I think, is grotesque. And there are many people who are saying that the government need to rethink this one as well.

In an interview with the BBC on Sunday, Liz Truss refused to confirm whether her government will increase benefits in with inflation, telling viewers: This is something the Department for Work and Pensions Secretary will be looking at.

Reeves declared today that it is a time of huge anxiety for people but the governments priority seems to be cutting taxes for people who are already on big salaries or businesses who are already making big profits.

The government dont just need to reverse the Budget, they need to rethink their whole idea of trickle-down economics, which is causing huge anxiety and has sent the markets into a panic, she added.

In the interview with the BBC, the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to rule out cutting public spending. The Chancellor told BBC Radio 4 today that it was really important that the government stay within the spending allocations set out in 2021.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that an extra 18bn is needed in each of the next two years to restore the real-terms generosity intended because of higher levels of inflation than forecast.

Reacting to the Chancellors comments, TUC general secretary Frances OGrady said: The Prime Minister promised during her leadership campaign there would be no return to austerity.

But that pledge now appears in tatters. If spending on public services does not rise in line with inflation, schools, hospitals and other vital services face a massive black hole in their budgets.

That would be devastating for communities across the country. Public services have already been cut to the bone by successive Conservative governments. There is nothing to trim.

If Liz Truss pushes ahead with another round of savage cuts this would be a huge betrayal of the British people and proof that her word counts for nothing.

Related

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

Follow this link:

Reeves: Government instincts in mini-Budget were to cut taxes for wealthiest - LabourList

Our pick of the best exhibitions to see right now in London's galleries and museums. We've split the list into geographical areas to make it easier to navigate, with some exhibitions from outside London added to the mix.

GANGNAM STYLE: Learn how Korea became a cultural powerhouse and try your hand, arms and legs at a K-pop dance routine before having it projected on to a screen. This sensational exhibition charts the opening up of Korea from the Seoul Olympics right through to Squid Game and the dozens of K-pop groups that have taken the music world by storm. It's that excellent blend of history, immersive elements and dazzling exhibition design that V&A does so well.

Hallyu! The Korean Wave at V&A. Until 25 June 2023, 20. (Open daily)

EMOTIONAL: What's it like to live with psychosis? Thankfully most of us won't experience it, but artist Marcus Coates puts himself through it for a series of six films, in which he is directed by those who have lived with psychosis, so that he experiences an approximation of what it's like to live with severe mental illness. Across the films he's made to feel hot and cold at the same time, to not trust friends and to doubt family photos are real, with his distress clear throughout. The six films are located throughout Pimlico, in a community centre, flat, medical centre and shops placing these extremely powerful films within domestic and day-to-day settings amplifies their impact. It's an intense two hours to see it all but it's important and unforgettable.

The Directors: Marcus Coates - an Artangel project is across Churchill Gardens Estate. Until 30 October, free. (Thursday-Sunday)

RESPLENDENT REFURB: Leighton House has always been one of our favourite west London gems, with its spectacular Arab hall worth the ticket price alone. Now it's been given a glow-up with the addition of new spaces including a naturally lit artist's studio and some fab extra exhibition spaces. As an added bonus, the nearby Sambourne House will also be opening up for regular visitors it's a five-storey townhouse packed to the rafters with Victorian art, furniture and a quirky 'shrine' of shells, with even less room to manoeuvre than at Sir John Soane's Museum.

Leighton House & Sambourne House. Reopens 15 October, 11 each or 20 combined. (Wednesday-Sunday)

STORMY SEAS: Winslow Homer is a painter I know best for his dramatic paintings of tempestuous seas, and there are plenty of roaring waves in this exhibitions. New to me, though, are his paintings that look at the aftermath of the US civil war and the abolition of slavery, examining the tension of Black families who then became paid labourers for the very people who had enslaved them, and how soldiers discarded their uniforms and returned to farm the land. It's this side of Homer, as a politically-engaged artist as well as a great painter, that makes for a stronger showing than expected.

Winslow Homer: Force of Nature at The National Gallery. Until 8 January 2023, 12. (Open daily)

PORTRAIT MASTER: One of recent history's greatest British painters has a major show of his works, ranging from his large-scale paintings of nudes to an intimate drawing of his mother on her death bed. Nobody painted textured, flabby flesh quite like he did, and looking at Freud's paintings is always a joy. While this exhibition doesn't offer much new beyond his National Portrait Gallery show from ten years ago it's still filled with brilliant work, and anyone wanting more of Freud or who missed that previous show should definitely give this one a visit.

The Credit Suisse Exhibition - Lucian Freud: New Perspectives at The National Gallery. Until 22 January 2023, 24-26 (pay what you wish on Friday evenings). (Open daily)

QUANTUM SLIME: Get ready for quantum art in an exhibition by Libby Heaney that mixes the world of fine art with that of quantum physics. Distorted artworks are created using code within a quantum computer, combining the forefronts of art and technology. There's a playful element to this exhibition watch a video piece about quantum entanglement while entangled within the tentacles of a soft giant octopus, or see glass slime moulds hanging from the bench, windowsill, doors and shelves in the gallery.

Libby Heaney: Remiqxing Still at Fiumano Clase. Until 16 October, free. (Tuesday-Saturday)

GRITTY & POLITICAL: Some of the Royal Academy's main galleries have been given a dark and blackened makeover to host the political works of William Kentridge, who uses drawings, films, opera and puppets to cover important topics such as corruption and the legacy of colonialism. They are powerful and moving works, even if the artist places so many layers into them that it sometimes feels difficult to keep up. Meanwhile, at nearby Goodman Gallery, Kentridge's latest work is an ambitious film that looks at the history of Russia between Lenin and Stalin all set to the music of composer Shostakovich.

William Kentridge at Royal Academy of Arts. Until 11 December, 20-22. (Tuesday-Sunday)William Kentridge: Oh To Believe in Another World at Goodman Gallery. Until 12 November, free. (Tuesday-Saturday)

FLEEING IN FEAR: A painting shows hundreds of tiny figures fleeing with a shadow of a plane overhead, some being beaten by police. Another painting looks like blood splatter. Violence is either shown or alluded to in haunting works, made all the more powerful given the artist was born and lived in Spain under the dictatorship of Franco.

Juan Genoves: Reconsidered at Marlborough London. Until 29 October, free. (Monday-Saturday)

BODY POLITICS: Painting, photography, performance and politics Carolee Schneemann's art contains it all, yet I'd never heard of her until I saw this impressive exhibition of her work. It's an intense viewing experience with an explicit film of her having sex with her partner, and distressing photographs of people leaping from the Twin Towers when they were attacked. Her unflinching look at the female body, sexuality and variety of work make for an eye-opening look at an artist who deserves greater recognition.

Carolee Schneemann: Body Politics at Barbican Art Gallery. Until 8 January, 18. (Open daily)

DREAMY LANDSCAPES: Lithuanian painter and composer M.K. iurlionis isn't that well-known, but this is a chance to lose yourself in his beautiful dreamy landscapes at Dulwich Picture Gallery. It's unlike anything we've seen before and it's easy to be seduced by his mythical works that take concepts such as the creation of the world and angels, give them their own twist to conjure up fantastical realms.

M.K. iurlionis: Between Worlds at Dulwich Picture Gallery. Until 12 March 2023, 15. (Tuesday-Sunday)

ASTONISHING APPLES: Paul Cezanne once said "with an apple I will astonish Paris". Over a century later, his work is still astonishing, whether it's a verdant landscape, a juicy still life or a tender depiction of his son. He could paint it all, and this vast exhibition of his work shows what a phenomenal talent he was. Tate Modern is the perfect place to show his work as all of contemporary art owes a debt to his trailblazing paintings that shifted art away from realistic depictions to capturing the spirit of its subject and art has since been richer for it.

The EY Exhibition: Cezanne at Tate Modern. Until 12 March 2023, 22. (Open daily)

FRAGILE SCULPTURE: Delicate, shell-like sculptures that feel like they could crumble with a touch, and works strung across a break in the wall, are an introduction to Slovakian Maria Bartuszova, an artist most will not have heard of. Resembling eggs and referencing themes of fertility and maternity, these are beautiful works, and most moving of all is a series of photographs where blind and partially-sighted children experienced sculpture through touching her pieces. The only downside is it's a small show, with a limited amount of work, that doesn't quite justify the hefty ticket price.

Maria Bartuszova at Tate Modern. Until 16 April 2023, 16. (Open daily)

TENDER PORTRAITS: Glyn Philpot was a British painter and his portraits, particularly those of men, have a wonderful tenderness and femininity to them that's unexpected from an artist painting in the 1910s-1930s. While he was a diverse artist who could also sculpt, it's his portraits of Black men and effeminate men that really stand out in this show. Painted at a time when society was less tolerant than it is today, his work distinguishes itself as embracing differences in this sizeable exhibition.

Glyn Philpot: Flesh and Spirit at Pallant House Gallery, Chichester. Until 23 October, free.

GUIDED MEDITATION: Put your watch and phone aside and lose track of time in this exhibition, where we're guided from place to place and asked to close our eyes to drift off within our own minds sometimes standing, sitting or even lying down. It's reminiscent of guided meditation and it's easy to completely lose track of time inside the gallery it could have been 15 minutes or an hour that I was in there. It'll likely have the largest impact on those of us with bustling lives and smartphone addictions, even if full blown revelations within the space are unlikely. It's not the strongest piece from the superstar performance artist, but still a thoughtful one.

Marina Abramovic: Gates and Portals at Modern Art Oxford. Until 5 March 2023, 10.

SHIPWRECKS BY THE SEA: Large-scale photos of shipwrecks are haunting as they hint at the rusting yet still present legacy of migration and trade it's a powerful series and fitting that it's beside the sea in the art deco De La Warr Pavilion. The works in this show all look at our relationship with the sea, including a recreation of a part of Zineb Sedira's studio featuring shelves of books, model ships and other ocean-related ephemera she's gathered. Sedira is a powerful political artist and, while this isn't her strongest work when compared to her excellent exhibition in Venice, it's still an impressive installation of film and photography.

Zineb Sedira: Can't You See The Sea Changing? at De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill. Until 8 January, free.

Read this article:

The Biggest Exhibitions To See In London And Beyond: Autumn 2022 - Londonist