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

Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.

So not an objection per se.

That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.

And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.

I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.

HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.

True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?

Country
Tax authority
Staff
Population
% of population
UK
HM Revenue & Customs
~70,000
~70 million
~0.10%
USA
Internal Revenue Service
~90,000
~335 million
~0.03%
France
Direction générale des Finances publiques
~95,000
~65 million
~0.15%
Germany
Bundeszentralamt für Steuern + Länder
~115,000
~84 million
~0.14%
Canada
Canada Revenue Agency
~59,000
~40 million
~0.15%
Australia
Australian Taxation Office
~19,000
~26 million
~0.07%

Does that include Customs?

I don't know, but it's a good question.

If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.

If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.

But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.

TFR still holding up in the poorest but most religious continent, Africa though.

How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR

Infant mortality is another.

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

Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.

So not an objection per se.

That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.

And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.

I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.

HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.

True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?

This is what Google tells me...

Country     Tax Authority                          Staff     Population      % of Population
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK          HM Revenue & Customs                   ~70,000   ~70,000,000     ~0.10%
USA         Internal Revenue Service               ~90,000   ~335,000,000    ~0.03%
France      Direction générale des Finances pub.   ~95,000   ~65,000,000     ~0.15%
Germany     Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (+Länder) ~115,000  ~84,000,000     ~0.14%
Canada      Canada Revenue Agency                  ~59,000   ~40,000,000     ~0.15%
Australia   Australian Taxation Office             ~19,000   ~26,000,000     ~0.07%

Worth noting that this doesn't include the US State's tax gathering staff, which are going to be quite significant.

Are we seriously back talking about what “A” customs union, rather than “THE” customs union, looks like in practice?

Ask the Turks what “A” CU looks like, it’s terribly one-sided.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Sandpit, easier (and less honest) to try and get us closer and closer to the EU then say "We may as well join seeing as we're already bound by their decisions but currently have no say" than it is to actually make a case for rejoining.

That approach has consistently failed to win over public opinion in Norway, however. But Norway was never foolish enough to volunteer for a damaging separation, and we would have been less foolish to have copied the Norwegian approach from the beginning.

Certainly. But then wankers like Ed Davey and Keir Starmer refused to map anything like that through Parliament when May would have agreed to it and now they are desperately trying to magic up what they could have had if they hadnt been prats.

May’s red lines clearly ruled out a Norway model. It’s May’s and Cameron’s decisions that killed that option.

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.

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

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?

1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.

You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.

The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.

I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.

Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.

Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.

And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.

In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.

Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.

I also agree we need more cycle lanes

Thank-you for the reply.

What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.

On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.

I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.

The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.

(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15357139/Accountancy-hit-cyclist-car-country-road-late-childrens-nanny-cleared-death-dangerous-driving.html

On that case he was likely guilty of careless driving as he was charged with even if the jury acquitted him. He should have left a 1.5m gap for all the cyclists.

However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was not on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all narrow single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now

It's actually a 2.5m-3.0m width at least - as it is 1.5m plus the space for the cyclist plus the space between the cyclist and the verge / kerb.

The "30 in a 60" fails the most basic teaching. It is a limit not a target, or a safe speed for a road. That's peppered through the entire Highway Code.

So there's zero basis for any Jury to reach that conclusion, and a Judge should point it out when any lawyer tries the argument. Equally with "there was not time to react when he went round the corner". That, like "I was blinded by the sun", is an admission of guilt for careless driving, not a reason or mitigation for a collision.

Insurance Liability Youtuber Big Jobber calls that "Bungalow Behaviour" (ie not much upstairs).

I know that most here will agree on those; I'm cross that the delusional thinking exists.

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.

After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.

Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.

I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.

The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.

You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.

On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?

It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.

You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.

Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.

You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.

Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.

Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream

In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate

Equally at that time no children meant zero support when you got old - remember that was before the State pension arrived..

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.

After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.

Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.

I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.

The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.

You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.

On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?

It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.

You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.

Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.

You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.

Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.

Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream

In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate

Good afternoon

You do know that times change and we live a far better life today despite all the problems we face

And why shouldn't more women go to university and have full time careers

Indeed our daughter in law did both and has three children, the youngest when she was 42

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

Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.

So not an objection per se.

That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.

And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.

I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.

HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.

True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?

Doesn't something like 1 or 2 percent of USA GDP go to legal expenses?

(Difficult to measure.)

Back before the US Republicans went insane, they proposed a reset on the income tax system - personal allowance, two rates and *no* exemptions.

Bill Clinton made a rare mistake and blurted out the quiet part “but it would throw hundreds of thousands of lawyers out of work”.

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.

British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children.
I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.

I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.

I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen.
I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.

Yes, as I just said it's about being a team and it's not just about leaning on women, I think it's about leaning on men too. Both men and women have completely screwed up expectations on how relationships and families work IMO. Men get fed a diet of bullshit from social media like Andrew Tate and very sadly too many young women think having an OnlyFans page is "empowering". As I keep saying, people need to go out and actually speak to Gen Z.

I agree with you about the malign influence of Tate and others like him - some of the lads do get some strange ideas from the internet - but I've never heard any of the girls describe having an OnlyFans page as empowering. Quite the opposite, in fact!