Best Of

Why are HMRC spending £11m on office furniture?

https://x.com/lnallalingham/status/2003029277759979530

Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?

A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:

No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period.
Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending:
Over £1 million on office chairs
£59,000 on desks
£16,000 on storage units
The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week.
Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.

Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/c2ebc7d5-e787-4fd4-95ec-133629f52f74

From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.

What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.

This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.

That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.

If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.

So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.

Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.

Math !!!!

You'll have to forgive him. He has spent far too many years amongst the uneducated colonists.

Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation.
A customs union is economically illiterate.

That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?

To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.

So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.

The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not

Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.

Why are HMRC spending £11m on office furniture?

https://x.com/lnallalingham/status/2003029277759979530

Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?

A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:

No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period.
Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending:
Over £1 million on office chairs
£59,000 on desks
£16,000 on storage units
The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week.
Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.

Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/c2ebc7d5-e787-4fd4-95ec-133629f52f74

From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.

What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.

This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.

That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.

If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.

So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.

Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.

Math !!!!

There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.

For that reason, I don't think he makes it.

Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.

IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.

I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.

Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.

What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.

Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.

Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).

The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,

And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.

I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job

Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse

With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.

You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid

Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.

One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?

Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).

I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.

(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)

Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?

They used wanton and furious driving in this case

Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.

I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit

You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.

That only works if you're not sending a text message, checking PB, changing the music, or yelling at your kids.

The BYDs are crazy cheap over here. Japanese people are double-prejudiced against both China and EVs but apparently their plan is just to keep discounting until somebody buys one and tells their friends that electric cars are not in fact total shite, that's just the Japanese ones.

I got the AWD version of the Seal and various extras that their highly effective ex-Nissan salespeople sold my wife on (I got back from the loo after agreeing to buy it and they were halfway to selling her a large mechanical digger) and it was only a little over 5 million yen which is like 24,000 GBP. Then a month later they announced a bunch of even bigger discounts.

With the subsidies and various discounts you can get a Dolphin for about 2 million yen which is under 10,000 GBP. I heard some people who have solar are buying new BYD Dolphins to use as storage batteries. The normal batteries sold by Nichicon etc are over 1 million yen for like 8 kWh, and a Dolphin gives you 45 kWh, lasts longer, and as an added bonus you can drive it around.

What a fascinating modern age with live in.

Talking about the modern age. Russia developing rocket borne shrapnel weapons to take out Starlink.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-12-22/western-intelligence-suspects-russia-is-developing-new-weapon-to-target-musks-starlink-satellites

Surely that risks not only Starlink, but all the other satellites in low Earth orbit. It could also potentially mean the end of human ambitions in space (including Musk's Mars plans).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, it would be the space equivalent of a nuclear weapon.

Will their rockets work though, be big change.

Sigh.

Kessler Syndrome probably doesn’t work. It *provably* doesn’t work in very low Earth orbit.

The atmospheric drag at that altitude pulls anything not under active control out of orbit very fast. This is one of the reasons that SpaceX is asking the regulators (the FCC, usually) for permission to use lower and lower orbits.

The “barrel of ball bearings” ASAT idea has been around since before Gagarin. The problem with it is that a single barrel of ball bearings only covers a tiny volume, on one orbit. Which is why ASAT designers immediately move to more directed systems. Bit like the “engines on wingtips” thing that shows up in initial designs for supersonic aircraft in the 1950s.

Russia has a recent history of childish “super weapons” willy waving. Such as the Poseidon mega torpedo, the farcical nuclear powered cruise missile (managed to kill some Russian scientists) and their “hypersonic weapons” - short range ballistic missile strapped to an aircraft.

Note also that SpaceX is launching 86% of the world tonnage to orbit. Russia is launching less than 3%

As a strategy for causing destruction of space ambitions and/or SpaceX, I would say, it's far more than 'probably' not going to work, it's more like 'almost certainly'.

First: as you mention, atmospheric drag is enormous at SpaceX type orbits. SpaceX "lost" a satellite last week. But here's the thing; the orbits are so low that essentially everything will have burnt up in the atmosphere in the next week or two. The shrapnel from these nuclear explosions would rapidly deorbit.

Secondy: you need to get your shrapnel to spead out from wherever the rocket took it. Any attempt to disperse debris over meaningful orbital volumes requires enormous delta-v. Even nuclear detonations distribute fragments inefficiently and uncontrollably

And even if you had a nuclear explosion, it's really hard to 'focus' said nuclear explosion along the orbital plane. Half of all the energy (and shrapnel) is going to be send right back down towards earth, and another chunk is going to be headed out towards Jupiter.

Which brings us to by far the biggest issue.

Third: space is really big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's nothing compared to how big space is.

How is Russia -given the issues above- going to get a massive amount of shrapnel (and nuclear weapons to spread it around) into low earth orbit? I mean they might be able to launch a couple of rockets, detonate a couple of nuclear bombs with a little bit of shrapnel, that gets into the right orbit for a week or two.

That shrapnel might even take out a Starlink satellite. Or three.

But how can a couple of tonnes of shrapnel (and I'm being generous here) spread out across more than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of LEO before burning up on reentry.

It's completely implausible.

An interesting theory:

"Sean Thomas
The economic purge of the young white male
How the Boomers sacrificed their sons to save themselves" (£)

https://spectator.com/article/the-economic-purge-of-the-young-white-male

And they wonder why their young white male sons have been voting for Trump, Farage and Reform, the AfD, Le Pen and RN, Brothers of Italy, One Nation in Australia etc

The article bemoans the fact that white men are no longer half of young writers in Hollywood (based on what source data I am not sure). But white men are only a quarter of the population for Americans in their twenties so why would we expect them to have half of these jobs?
Feels like a load of mediocrities bemoaning the fact they can no longer expect preferential treatment. Sad!

Why are HMRC spending £11m on office furniture?

https://x.com/lnallalingham/status/2003029277759979530

Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?

A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:

No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period.
Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending:
Over £1 million on office chairs
£59,000 on desks
£16,000 on storage units
The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week.
Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.

Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/c2ebc7d5-e787-4fd4-95ec-133629f52f74

From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.

What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.

This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.

That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.

If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.

So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.

Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.