Skip to content

The budget: winners and losers – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,820
edited December 2 in General
The budget: winners and losers – politicalbetting.com

Most Britons support measures such as the gambling tax, the council tax surcharge. While freezing income tax bands and changes to salary sacrifice schemes are less popular. Britons are more split on the tourist tax and the student loan threshold freeze pic.twitter.com/fHxHL0rPS2

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,275

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Lettuce not go there.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,240
    ydoethur said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Lettuce not go there.
    It may be the tip of the iceberg.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    Battlebus said:

    bobbob said:

    DoctorG said:

    bobbob said:

    OK so I read the Fingleton report. Not a classic. It’s so specific to the nuclear industry that the Starmers comments don’t make much sense. Fingletron’s intro that mentions “process over outcome using complex procedures as protection” and “lack of incentives aligned with the public interest” feel like are talking about a different document to the report and it’s recommendations which is really odd.

    I wonder what nuclear experts think of it.

    Not a nuclear expert by any stretch but I wonder if Starmer has looked at Hinckley point and the length of time to progress, and been advised to spread the load of energy infrastructure around more, and not put all eggs in the renewable basket. Saying that its a bit like commissioning submarines, you have to do it years in advance to plan for what they are going to do in 10 years time, then when they come on board, technology has moved onto the next thing and they are nearly obsolete.

    A change in tone definitely, civil service have been working in the background this year to free up planning and development mechanisms away from red tape, whilst keeping on top of environmental issues.

    Proof of pudding will be in the eating, but don't expect too much given the ongoing shambles in other areas of government. I also note the environmental funding proposals announced today are asking a fair bit of lifting from the private sector, maybe trying to guilt trip large companies into environmental obligations when they announce new construction developments?
    IMO Doubling down on nuclear after the Hinckley point disaster shows how fixed and closed their mindset is and they refuse to challenge their own out dated assumptions. Just like everything else they can’t imagine anything else so they jus5 fiddle around the edges. Doubt it helps that Starmer is of early retirement age

    One of the opening lines is “ Nuclear technology is essential to the UK’s future”. Not at at £1.40mwh it shouldn’t be !

    Hinckley point c should be a national scandal
    This chap, who has form for another scandal, signed it off.

    https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/12/15/ed-davey-doubts-over-hinkley-point-nuclear/
    That's not quite what the article says, is it ?
    ...Changing fossil fuel price projections meant the cost to consumers rose significantly between 2013, when Davey signed the deal for electricity at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh), and 2016, when the government formally signed off on the project...
  • YouGov

    Reform 26 (+1)

    Lab 19 (nc)

    Con 19 (+1)

    Greens 16 (nc)

    LD 14 (-1)

    The budget hasn't shifted the dial much, yet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,894
    For most voters then this was perceived as a tax and spend budget mainly favouring those on welfare. Starmer and Reeves will be encouraged though by the fact most Labour 2024 voters even back the income tax thresholds freeze even if voters overall don't and that most voters back measures like the mansion tax and gambling tax
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635
    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    The White House been caught in another lie. After claiming Pete Hegseth didn’t know anything about the strikes in the Caribbean, footage has resurfaced of him in September saying he watched it LIVE.
    https://x.com/harryjsisson/status/1995699858871910615

    I guess a few hangovers will have dulled his memory.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,763
    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018

    ydoethur said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Lettuce not go there.
    It may be the tip of the iceberg.
    A sweet gem…
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,986
    edited December 2
    Word clouds are terrific for people who can't string a sentence together.

    What would make someone respond 'Absolutely' to a question about the budget?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    I don't think there's much "uncertainty".

    https://x.com/lrozen/status/1995676896265146581
    Leavitt’s “remarks…elicited a furious backlash within the Defense Depapt, where officials described feeling angry at the uncertainty over whether Hegseth would take responsibility for his alleged role in the operation — or leave the military & civilian staff under him to face the consequences.
    “This is ‘protect Pete’ bulls---,” 1 military official said.

    “1 official said of Leavitt’s statement, ‘It’s throwing us, the service members, under the bus.’ Another person said some of Hegseth’s top civilian staff appeared deeply alarmed about the revelations and were contemplating whether to leave the administration.

    “A U.S. official..lamented that Bradley…was singled out by Leavitt in her statement at the White House earlier.

    ‘Whether he takes the blame or not,’ this official said, ‘his reputation has been marred by this forever, just by that statement.’”..
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,703
    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,275
    edited December 2

    ydoethur said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Lettuce not go there.
    It may be the tip of the iceberg.
    Once you have lost the public's Truss, nothing Romaines.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,736
    edited December 2

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,275

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    We will have to Steel ourselves.

    https://youtu.be/178DVLAKgq4?si=EEjfUS2qKhEbDWIO
  • FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,089
    Good morning all.

    Evan Edinger: New Jersey by public transport, including its most walkable town:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUGXgTplLok
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    Have you come across this concept, @Foxy ?

    Leavitt claims that Trump had a "preventative" MRI
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1995567329082487122
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,804

    Cable Munching Rats Cause 11 Day Openreach Broadband Outage in Doncaster

    Nearly 100 premises in Askern, which is a town and civil parish within the City of Doncaster (South Yorkshire, England), have been left without access to Openreach’s UK broadband network after rodents – those with a seemingly strong appetite for telecoms infrastructure – chewed through one of the operator’s cables in the area. Nothing like a diet high in fibre.

    https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2025/12/cable-munching-rats-cause-11-day-openreach-broadband-outage-in-doncaster.html

    That pun is so awesome you would think I worked for that website.

    Askern: even the rats are desperate!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    Well, yes.
    But even the ignorant idiots who defend the extrajudicial killing (aka murder) of suspected drug smugglers have no defence for the second strike.

    Hard for me to see how one can support the summary killing of alleged drug couriers on unarmed boats, and only be aghast at the attack on them after a boat is hit. The killings are lawless to begin with; the follow-on strike was fruit of a poisonous tree.
    https://x.com/jawillick/status/1995666769093042474
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,154
    Nigelb said:

    Have you come across this concept, @Foxy ?

    Leavitt claims that Trump had a "preventative" MRI
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1995567329082487122

    Even if it was a thing, 2 in 6 months is not preventing anything...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,804
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Lettuce not go there.
    It may be the tip of the iceberg.
    Once you have lost the public's Truss, nothing Romaines.
    They need some rocket up their arses cos otherwise all that will be left of the dreams of good government is chard romaines :disappointed:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,464
    OK, so will all the numpties who, asked what they think of the budget, answered “budget”, please take one step forward?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048

    Cable Munching Rats Cause 11 Day Openreach Broadband Outage in Doncaster

    Nearly 100 premises in Askern, which is a town and civil parish within the City of Doncaster (South Yorkshire, England), have been left without access to Openreach’s UK broadband network after rodents – those with a seemingly strong appetite for telecoms infrastructure – chewed through one of the operator’s cables in the area. Nothing like a diet high in fibre.

    https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2025/12/cable-munching-rats-cause-11-day-openreach-broadband-outage-in-doncaster.html

    That pun is so awesome you would think I worked for that website.

    I hate* to inject a note of pedantry, but the percentage of fibre (as opposed to what surrounds it) in an optical cable can be very low indeed.

    *not really
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,154
    @johnbourscheid

    Never ask:

    A woman her age

    A man his salary

    The White House why the president is getting a secret medical procedure that makes him unable to do public appearances for the first three days of every month since September.

    https://x.com/johnbourscheid/status/1995470999635054602?s=20
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,763
    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,464

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing.
    But with the consolation that at least you are comprehending.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,974
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    Richard Hughes has resigned because he commissioned a lightning review of their IT security processes and, presumably, it was damning. That is something the person in charge should resign for and is separate to the row over whether the CoE misled the cabinet.
    Though I read an article yesterday which pointed out she has less headroom than previous chancellors, with the probable exception of Hunt who was crouching.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,852
    Junior doctors rep Dr Dolphin having an absolutely shocker on Today. He might need to check into his own A&E after the savaging he’s getting from Nick Robinson.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,275
    edited December 2
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    Have you come across this concept, @Foxy ?

    Leavitt claims that Trump had a "preventative" MRI
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1995567329082487122

    Even if it was a thing, 2 in 6 months is not preventing anything...
    Now be fair. An hour when he's shut in an MRI scanner looking for something that according to somebody who would never dream of lying isn't there is an hour preventing him from doing something incredibly stupid.

    OK, it leaves the other 167 hours of the week, but it's not to be despised.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635
    edited December 2
    Nigelb said:

    Cable Munching Rats Cause 11 Day Openreach Broadband Outage in Doncaster

    Nearly 100 premises in Askern, which is a town and civil parish within the City of Doncaster (South Yorkshire, England), have been left without access to Openreach’s UK broadband network after rodents – those with a seemingly strong appetite for telecoms infrastructure – chewed through one of the operator’s cables in the area. Nothing like a diet high in fibre.

    https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2025/12/cable-munching-rats-cause-11-day-openreach-broadband-outage-in-doncaster.html

    That pun is so awesome you would think I worked for that website.

    I hate* to inject a note of pedantry, but the percentage of fibre (as opposed to what surrounds it) in an optical cable can be very low indeed.

    *not really
    Yes most of the physical cable is shielding, supposedly to stop errant rodents chomping through it or workmen digging it up.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,736

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,974

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,089
    edited December 2

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    I want the names.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,240

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    Just on the 'common'-ness of things: this is an area that the internet has changed dramatically, whether it's psychological disorders, unusual frisky habits, or very good/bad examples of humanity. A single instance posted on social media can easily garner half a dozen similar examples. Half a dozen is not a huge number and most unusual things, good or bad, can be found to that extent. But if they're splattered across your 'feed' with huge rates of RTs and likes then it makes them seem far more usual. And if you talk to a friend there's a decent chance they'll've seen the same thing, making it more familiar than its frequency deserves.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,979
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/dec/01/die-hard-not-christmas-movie-home-alone

    Sorry if this important article has already been posted.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,763
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing.
    But with the consolation that at least you are comprehending.
    Taxes are going up to pay for more welfare to give to those with larger families.

    That's all that matters, and it happens to be true as well.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,763
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    And I'm not. I don't think that's a good use of public funds.

    You're in a minority.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,763
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    I don't think the Mail will struggle at all.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,357
    edited December 2
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    Dopermean said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
    Indeed. Because the system is obviously trustable and several senior figures have said they trust judges more than juries.

    {Lord Denning has entered the chat and declared everyone guilty - in the public interest}
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,756
    Killer number for Labour is that only 3% think the Budget will have a very positive impact on them. The ungrateful welfare class, too dim to realise Starmer and Reeves have gone out on a limb for them.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,979
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    Agree. There is lots of quantitative data about the size of the welfare bill, and lots of individual cases, thanks to Mail DT etc, about outlying cases, but a shortage (to me anyway) of qualitative data about who in reality is getting what, for what reason and how it relates to those in work, and those out of work.

    Once we all agree that being out of work and gaming the system both works and is the substantial reality (courtesy of DT and Mail and Goodwin) the social contract ceases to function.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,275

    Dopermean said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
    Indeed. Because the system is obviously trustable and several senior figures have said they trust judges more than juries.

    {Lord Denning has entered the chat and declared everyone guilty - in the public interest}
    And of course the CCRC is so well run and efficient that when judges do screw up things will get sorted quickly, in a mere 19 years.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,240
    BBC article on Zambia and a Chinese failing leading to huge contamination of an important river: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6nly288j4o

    Good article, although the subject's obviously less than lovely.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635

    Dopermean said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
    Indeed. Because the system is obviously trustable and several senior figures have said they trust judges more than juries.

    {Lord Denning has entered the chat and declared everyone guilty - in the public interest}
    One suspects that such a plan is going to be ripped to shreds in the Lords, if it even makes it out of the Commons in the first place. Trial by jury is such a fundamental British right they’re trying to remove with little oversight and no manifesto commitment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,894
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,844
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
  • Good for young people? Give me a break!

    Young people have been screwed over, yet again, as is de rigueur.

    The Student Loan threshold freeze means that people working full-time on Minimum Wage who are graduates face an extra 9% income tax. Let alone anyone who earns a salary a smidgen over minimum wage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,894

    YouGov

    Reform 26 (+1)

    Lab 19 (nc)

    Con 19 (+1)

    Greens 16 (nc)

    LD 14 (-1)

    The budget hasn't shifted the dial much, yet.

    Kemi will be pleased with the Conservatives up 1% and tied with Labour for second. Reform up but only to 26% and LDs down
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635
    Did SirKeir really say he’s accepting John Fingleton’s report on nuclear power, and will actually do something about the issues raised?

    https://x.com/johnfingleton1/status/1995456872053166099

    I’ll believe it when actions match words, but a rare compliment to the PM if he can actually succeed in avoiding a £700m salmon party at the next reactor, and get at least a couple of SMRs underway before the next election.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,844
    algarkirk said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    Agree. There is lots of quantitative data about the size of the welfare bill, and lots of individual cases, thanks to Mail DT etc, about outlying cases, but a shortage (to me anyway) of qualitative data about who in reality is getting what, for what reason and how it relates to those in work, and those out of work.

    Once we all agree that being out of work and gaming the system both works and is the substantial reality (courtesy of DT and Mail and Goodwin) the social contract ceases to function.

    Depressing to see the new reality (well, old slants) being pushed persistently on here. It doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the credibility of those who espouse it.

    We've for instance seen very basic errors, such as the equation of UC = dole scrounger, in particular, when UC is in large part an in-work Speenhamland style allowance, and repeated whining about the increase in the former when this is simply the shift of existing claimants to the new UC system.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,357
    edited December 2

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,464
    edited December 2

    Killer number for Labour is that only 3% think the Budget will have a very positive impact on them. The ungrateful welfare class, too dim to realise Starmer and Reeves have gone out on a limb for them.

    The budget contains tons of bad news and it isn't surprising that most people don't like it. The only small glimmer of consolation in any of those poll results is that the number thinking it would have a "very negative impact" on them personally is lower than for all of the other categories (except, just, for benefit claimants), suggesting that most people do at least think the worst of the budget will fall on someone else.

    The irony is that, in the immediate future at least, the main reason we will all be paying more arises from simply continuing what the Tories have already been doing for some time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,089

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Crap at comms. Again.

    There's plenty of things that can be positive messages if there was a dedication to writing the agenda rather than letting others do so. But they don't tell them again 298 times.

    I see that the Purchasing Managers Index gas gone positive for the first time in over a year:
    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-manufacturing-pmi-shows-first-growth-over-year-november-2025-12-01/

    On topic, three of the major groups the Government should be pointing to as beneficiaries of their budgets are 1 - Pensioners (above inflation increases), 2 - Low wage workers (minimum wage, workers' rights), 3 - Mortgage holders.

    But they won't. Or at least they won't firmly enough. They will point it out to the media (Starmer speech for example), who will then cherry pick a couple of factoids to be a negative narrative.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,894
    edited December 2
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for 91 days while on JSA
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,089
    algarkirk said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    Agree. There is lots of quantitative data about the size of the welfare bill, and lots of individual cases, thanks to Mail DT etc, about outlying cases, but a shortage (to me anyway) of qualitative data about who in reality is getting what, for what reason and how it relates to those in work, and those out of work.

    Once we all agree that being out of work and gaming the system both works and is the substantial reality (courtesy of DT and Mail and Goodwin) the social contract ceases to function.

    One suggestion I've seen is that unemployment support should be unbundled from Universal Credit, since there is a repeated fake narrative pretending that growth in UC recipients is somehow due to people freeloading, rather than teh continued transfer of people into the UC scheme.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,844
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for six months while on JSA
    Go back and read what you wrote. You're demanding an increase in benefits for people who are well enough off not to need UC, while demanding the 2CC for people who are not well enough off not to need UC. That's *reverse* means testing.

    If that's Modern Tory policy, heaven help the party.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,089

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    And I'm not. I don't think that's a good use of public funds.

    You're in a minority.
    It's time for the "majority", if such exists, to stop being so gullible.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,756
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I imagine his Cabinet-member wife muttering under her breath "Shut up. Ed, just STFU...."
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,464
    Apologies I have had some life to live so not been on here for a while. Have we done the Your Party clips on X yet or already.

    Than which there is no better entertainment rn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,894
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for six months while on JSA
    Go back and read what you wrote. You're demanding an increase in benefits for people who are well enough off not to need UC, while demanding the 2CC for people who are not well enough off not to need UC. That's *reverse* means testing.

    If that's Modern Tory policy, heaven help the party.
    No as you also cannot claim child benefit if your income is over £80k. It is working parents who are on middle income who earn less than that and don’t claim UC who would benefit from increased standard child benefit and given our low 1.4 fertility rate now that is why I back a rise in standard child benefit.

    It would be a fantastic Tory pro middle income families policy
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,804
    boulay said:

    Junior doctors rep Dr Dolphin having an absolutely shocker on Today. He might need to check into his own A&E after the savaging he’s getting from Nick Robinson.

    Was he unclear on the porpoise of the strikes? Or did he admit they're just after a few extra squid?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    So we should just do nothing?

    Excellent news for those who have a major fuck up on their watch, every three months or so.

    I was in a meeting in a bank, where they explained Sarbanes-Oxley. When it was bought in.

    A manger put his hand up - “So if someone working for me fucks up, I could go to prison? in America?”

    Answer - “Yes. If you can’t prove they acted against policy and systems weren’t there to stop them.”

    Within hours, shit was being tightened up. No more developers with access to production, traders “fixing” trades using the “admin” login.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,193

    Good for young people? Give me a break!

    Young people have been screwed over, yet again, as is de rigueur.

    The Student Loan threshold freeze means that people working full-time on Minimum Wage who are graduates face an extra 9% income tax. Let alone anyone who earns a salary a smidgen over minimum wage.

    Gen X and above does not give a fuck
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,844
    edited December 2
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for six months while on JSA
    Go back and read what you wrote. You're demanding an increase in benefits for people who are well enough off not to need UC, while demanding the 2CC for people who are not well enough off not to need UC. That's *reverse* means testing.

    If that's Modern Tory policy, heaven help the party.
    No as you also cannot claim child benefit if your income is over £80k. It is working parents who are on middle income who earn less than that and don’t claim UC who would benefit from increased standard child benefit and given our low 1.4 fertility rate now that is why I back a rise in standard child benefit.

    It would be a fantastic Tory pro middle income families policy
    You're worried about fertility? Then do something about the 2CC.

    Edit: but we could do with better stats for discussion, as @algarkirk remarks.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,874

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    If you're explaining, you're losing is true as a piece of practical politics, but it's pretty depressing as an insight into the human condition.

    OK, I admit it. I'm on Team "It's probably more complicated than that", because of my brain function, skills and background. But many of the problems we have aren't just 'yay' or 'boo'. They are how do you trade-off two things that are both desirable but where you can only have one. Or two options which are both a bit bad, but you have to choose one.

    To use Victorian language, how do you balance the needs of the 'deserving' poor with the reasonable wish of the taxpayer to not fund the 'undeserving' out of scarce resources? After all, a lot of the families benefiting from the change have got working parents, or didn't expect to be in the circumstances they were in when baby 3 was born.

    Besides, the papers don't need to find people on high benefits. They can just recylce a think tank report that notes that if you are getting maxed-out disability benefits, you can get the equivalent of £71k a household. Except you don't want to explain the bit in italics. Because if you are explaining, you're losing.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    edited December 2
    MattW said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Crap at comms. Again.

    There's plenty of things that can be positive messages if there was a dedication to writing the agenda rather than letting others do so. But they don't tell them again 298 times.

    I see that the Purchasing Managers Index gas gone positive for the first time in over a year:
    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-manufacturing-pmi-shows-first-growth-over-year-november-2025-12-01/

    On topic, three of the major groups the Government should be pointing to as beneficiaries of their budgets are 1 - Pensioners (above inflation increases), 2 - Low wage workers (minimum wage, workers' rights), 3 - Mortgage holders.

    But they won't. Or at least they won't firmly enough. They will point it out to the media (Starmer speech for example), who will then cherry pick a couple of factoids to be a negative narrative.
    I remember Tebbit vs Brian Redhead

    Tebbit was on Radio 4. He started by asking why BR hadn’t asked him about the unemployment figures, just out {when unemployment was going up, BR had led with it, devoted half his interviews to it etc etc}. BR stalled. Tebbit persisted. Went on for at least 5 minutes.

    Finally, BR asked about unemployment through gritted teeth. Tebbit sunnily replied that it had gone down again, just as it had for the last year.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,974
    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    I watched the documentary on the Camelford poisoning last week, that is almost a direct quote of the Chair and Chief Exec of South West Water, Mr Court.
    The senior managers were all eagerly waiting for privatisation because they were expecting huge pay rises.
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,703
    HYUFD said:

    YouGov

    Reform 26 (+1)

    Lab 19 (nc)

    Con 19 (+1)

    Greens 16 (nc)

    LD 14 (-1)

    The budget hasn't shifted the dial much, yet.

    Kemi will be pleased with the Conservatives up 1% and tied with Labour for second. Reform up but only to 26% and LDs down
    Last couple of polls have seen Reform up 1. So, for the time being, it looks like they’ve arrested the slump but it also looks like the Tories are starting to inch back up.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635
    boulay said:

    Junior doctors rep Dr Dolphin having an absolutely shocker on Today. He might need to check into his own A&E after the savaging he’s getting from Nick Robinson.

    Surely he can’t be any worse than the last junior doctors’ rep, who came across like Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Junior doctors second only to the WASPI women when it comes to a lack of public sympathy, we all know they’ll quickly be on close to six figure salaries.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,357

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    So we should just do nothing?

    Excellent news for those who have a major fuck up on their watch, every three months or so.

    I was in a meeting in a bank, where they explained Sarbanes-Oxley. When it was bought in.

    A manger put his hand up - “So if someone working for me fucks up, I could go to prison? in America?”

    Answer - “Yes. If you can’t prove they acted against policy and systems weren’t there to stop them.”

    Within hours, shit was being tightened up. No more developers with access to production, traders “fixing” trades using the “admin” login.
    I think fundamentally I disagree that this is "a major fuckup". And as far as I'm aware it's not part of a pattern of the organisation having major screwups every three months.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    edited December 2
    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    So we should just do nothing?

    Excellent news for those who have a major fuck up on their watch, every three months or so.

    I was in a meeting in a bank, where they explained Sarbanes-Oxley. When it was bought in.

    A manger put his hand up - “So if someone working for me fucks up, I could go to prison? in America?”

    Answer - “Yes. If you can’t prove they acted against policy and systems weren’t there to stop them.”

    Within hours, shit was being tightened up. No more developers with access to production, traders “fixing” trades using the “admin” login.
    I think fundamentally I disagree that this is "a major fuckup". And as far as I'm aware it's not part of a pattern of the organisation having major screwups every three months.
    What do graphs like this say?



    Oh, and an early release like this is a sacking offence in many contexts.

    The fact that a junior employee hasn’t been binned strongly suggests that they don’t have a proper system in place. Probably because a senior manager decided not to fund it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,024

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing.
    But with the consolation that at least you are comprehending.
    Taxes are going up to pay for more welfare to give to those with larger families.

    That's all that matters, and it happens to be true as well.
    Once again, it's Lib Dems that are out here defending the Labour government. I wonder whether any of them have the self awareness to have their Alec Guinness moment before the next election and realise in their desperate rush to hate the Tories they've become defenders of incompetence and malevolence from Labour. I doubt it.
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for six months while on JSA
    Go back and read what you wrote. You're demanding an increase in benefits for people who are well enough off not to need UC, while demanding the 2CC for people who are not well enough off not to need UC. That's *reverse* means testing.

    If that's Modern Tory policy, heaven help the party.
    No as you also cannot claim child benefit if your income is over £80k. It is working parents who are on middle income who earn less than that and don’t claim UC who would benefit from increased standard child benefit and given our low 1.4 fertility rate now that is why I back a rise in standard child benefit.

    It would be a fantastic Tory pro middle income families policy
    It would be unacceptable in the present climate

    The two most unpopular decisions in the Budget according to YouGov were freezing thresholds and the 2 child benefit cap as the public draw the line on more taxes and benefits

    Badenoch is correct to say she will reinstate the 2 child cap but needs to go further with abolishing the triple lock and means testing the state pension as part of a reduction in welfare spending and not adding to benefits other than by inflation
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    The names of those who lied and covered up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cable Munching Rats Cause 11 Day Openreach Broadband Outage in Doncaster

    Nearly 100 premises in Askern, which is a town and civil parish within the City of Doncaster (South Yorkshire, England), have been left without access to Openreach’s UK broadband network after rodents – those with a seemingly strong appetite for telecoms infrastructure – chewed through one of the operator’s cables in the area. Nothing like a diet high in fibre.

    https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2025/12/cable-munching-rats-cause-11-day-openreach-broadband-outage-in-doncaster.html

    That pun is so awesome you would think I worked for that website.

    I hate* to inject a note of pedantry, but the percentage of fibre (as opposed to what surrounds it) in an optical cable can be very low indeed.

    *not really
    Yes most of the physical cable is shielding, supposedly to stop errant rodents chomping through it or workmen digging it up.
    Maybe we should incorporate rat poison into it ?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,357
    edited December 2

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    So we should just do nothing?

    Excellent news for those who have a major fuck up on their watch, every three months or so.

    I was in a meeting in a bank, where they explained Sarbanes-Oxley. When it was bought in.

    A manger put his hand up - “So if someone working for me fucks up, I could go to prison? in America?”

    Answer - “Yes. If you can’t prove they acted against policy and systems weren’t there to stop them.”

    Within hours, shit was being tightened up. No more developers with access to production, traders “fixing” trades using the “admin” login.
    I think fundamentally I disagree that this is "a major fuckup". And as far as I'm aware it's not part of a pattern of the organisation having major screwups every three months.
    What do graphs like this say?



    Oh, and an early release like this is a sacking offence in many contexts.

    The fact that a junior employee hasn’t been binned strongly suggests that they don’t have a proper system in place. Probably because a senior manager decided not to fund it.
    Now you're changing the argument. If you want to argue that the OBR are doing a terrible job of forecasting and their leader should resign because of that, feel free (and I might well agree with you). But that's not what we were talking about here and it's not why he's actually offered his resignation.

    Also, we do know that they had a system in place -- the pdf report they published yesterday says so. It just wasn't working the way they thought it did (because of some shonky wordpress plugin).
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,974

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    If you're explaining, you're losing is true as a piece of practical politics, but it's pretty depressing as an insight into the human condition.

    OK, I admit it. I'm on Team "It's probably more complicated than that", because of my brain function, skills and background. But many of the problems we have aren't just 'yay' or 'boo'. They are how do you trade-off two things that are both desirable but where you can only have one. Or two options which are both a bit bad, but you have to choose one.

    To use Victorian language, how do you balance the needs of the 'deserving' poor with the reasonable wish of the taxpayer to not fund the 'undeserving' out of scarce resources? After all, a lot of the families benefiting from the change have got working parents, or didn't expect to be in the circumstances they were in when baby 3 was born.

    Besides, the papers don't need to find people on high benefits. They can just recylce a think tank report that notes that if you are getting maxed-out disability benefits, you can get the equivalent of £71k a household. Except you don't want to explain the bit in italics. Because if you are explaining, you're losing.

    Are we going to approach the concept that helping the "undeserving poor" and reducing their dysfunction might be of net benefit to the taxpayer by reducing the cost of the anti-social behaviour?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,874
    MattW said:

    This poll this morning is terrible for labour with them less trusted than Truss of all people!!!

    https://news.sky.com/story/budget-2025-over-a-third-of-britons-think-rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bad-news-13478111

    Crap at comms. Again.

    There's plenty of things that can be positive messages if there was a dedication to writing the agenda rather than letting others do so. But they don't tell them again 298 times.

    I see that the Purchasing Managers Index gas gone positive for the first time in over a year:
    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-manufacturing-pmi-shows-first-growth-over-year-november-2025-12-01/

    On topic, three of the major groups the Government should be pointing to as beneficiaries of their budgets are 1 - Pensioners (above inflation increases), 2 - Low wage workers (minimum wage, workers' rights), 3 - Mortgage holders.

    But they won't. Or at least they won't firmly enough. They will point it out to the media (Starmer speech for example), who will then cherry pick a couple of factoids to be a negative narrative.
    Not entirely the government's fault. The media landscape is much more infotainment and opioniotainment than it was under Blair and Brown. And the market for messaging that is even vaguely sympathetic to the government is pretty small.

    Better planning and communication would obviously be a good thing. But I doubt it would change much of the coverage or shift many opinions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048
    Dopermean said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
    There was a lengthy interview with a judge early this morning on Today, who reckoned it would make only a marginal difference to speed of trials. And that the only way to seriously tackle the backlog would be to provide more resources, judges and court time.
    (He had participated in a successful local exercise to reduce backlog, but it ended when they lost a couple of judges.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,048

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    And I'm not. I don't think that's a good use of public funds.

    You're in a minority.
    You believe in storing up problems for the future then.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,420
    My own view of the Budget is that my impression or what I think of it rarely turns out to be reality, so I'll wait & see what happens.

    On Sunday I met one very aged lady who is going to be paying Income Tax on her pension for the first time, but whether that was due to the Budget or some other change I don't know.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    So Rachel from accounts won the sack race against Richard Hughes, with the OBR chief forced out rather than testify to the Committee today.

    American sack race next, who wins out of SecDef Peter Hegseth and Minnesota Gov Tim Walz, both on the front pages for separate scandals over the weekend?

    Ed Balls reckons they should reject the resignation

    https://x.com/edballs/status/1995556994409710034?s=61
    I find it hard to feel that the OBR early report release was a resignation matter. It's a nice easy to understand Westminster gossip type story that the media can get excited about, but at bottom it's "we made a mistake with the config of our Wordpress site so it wasn't requiring authentication for the file the way we expected". Yes, there's the "market sensitive information" aspect, but in practice that doesn't seem to have actually caused major harm. The closest to a real management failure is that they probably should have assessed whether they were taking the risks seriously enough (e.g. testing that their embargoed docs process really did prevent access) and whether the system they set up in 2013 was still the right one given how important the OBR has become these days. But if we lose a decent head of the OBR and it spends the next six months leaderless while selecting a new one who then has to get up to speed with the organisation's issues, is that really a benefit to the country?
    No accountability, eh?

    Next week - “Bombed the shipwrecked survivors *twice*. But losing the head of the military, is that really a benefit to the country? At this point does it really matter?”

    If no one is punished for anything, then anything goes.

    “Just open the gates, Constable, it’s not like anyone does anything if a bunch of scousers get crushed.”
    I think that if we treat every mistake and oversight as if it was a wilful decision that could foreseeably cause multiple deaths, then every senior leader of every organisation or enterprise in the country would be out of a job every three months, to absolutely no benefit -- and those who presided over the real horrors will be no worse off than those where some minor mishap happened under their watch, which I'm sure they'd be happy about. There should be accountability, yes. But it should be proportional.
    So we should just do nothing?

    Excellent news for those who have a major fuck up on their watch, every three months or so.

    I was in a meeting in a bank, where they explained Sarbanes-Oxley. When it was bought in.

    A manger put his hand up - “So if someone working for me fucks up, I could go to prison? in America?”

    Answer - “Yes. If you can’t prove they acted against policy and systems weren’t there to stop them.”

    Within hours, shit was being tightened up. No more developers with access to production, traders “fixing” trades using the “admin” login.
    I think fundamentally I disagree that this is "a major fuckup". And as far as I'm aware it's not part of a pattern of the organisation having major screwups every three months.
    What do graphs like this say?



    Oh, and an early release like this is a sacking offence in many contexts.

    The fact that a junior employee hasn’t been binned strongly suggests that they don’t have a proper system in place. Probably because a senior manager decided not to fund it.
    Now you're changing the argument. If you want to argue that the OBR are doing a terrible job of forecasting and their leader should resign because of that, feel free (and I might well agree with you). But that's not what we were talking about here and it's not why he's actually offered his resignation.

    Also, we do know that they had a system in place -- the pdf report they published yesterday says so. It just wasn't working the way they thought it did (because of some shonky wordpress plugin).
    If someone working for me was using Wordpress for the release of confidential information, I would fire them.

    That by itself, is gross incompetence. Wordpress is known to have many, many flaws. Especially with security.

    The latest fuckup is the most public and obvious. But the OBR has a track record of being wrong. Why is that changing the subject? Organisations rot from the head.
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,703
    Sandpit said:

    Did SirKeir really say he’s accepting John Fingleton’s report on nuclear power, and will actually do something about the issues raised?

    https://x.com/johnfingleton1/status/1995456872053166099

    I’ll believe it when actions match words, but a rare compliment to the PM if he can actually succeed in avoiding a £700m salmon party at the next reactor, and get at least a couple of SMRs underway before the next election.

    Yes, and he will extend it to other types of infrastructure build too

    Meanwhile the nuclear plant in Anglesey is held up by arctic terns.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,389
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for 91 days while on JSA
    Almost three quarters of children in poverty are in working households. This Tory division into strivers and shirkers is a fundamentally dishonest narrative.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,874
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I think a not acknowledged but important group benefiting from this will be lone mums with three or more children, whose husbands / partners have walked out.

    Amongst people known to me are two women in this position, for both of whom the extra 4-5k will be transformative. One has three children under 10, and works as an office manager in a local business. Her husband is now on his third woman, having left two with children before he reached the age of 40. From what I hear his latest is an an alcoholic, so it may not be so much fun this time.

    I'm happy to pay my share of such.
    And I'm not. I don't think that's a good use of public funds.

    You're in a minority.
    You believe in storing up problems for the future then.
    There were a lot of policies like that between 2010 and 2024. Some of that is due to the recent tendency of the Conservatives to appeal to the worst instincts of the 'selfish oldie' segment of the electorate. Some of it is taking too many insights from the worst bits of the City, who would happily sell of the country for spare parts if it meant that they could hit their quarterly targets and get a big bonus.

    One of our problems now (and for the next twenty years or so, I reckon) is that the future from 2010 has now arrived. To be followed by the one from 2011, 2012...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,018
    Nigelb said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    There will be no justice in this case.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-inquiry-post-office-horizon-3rl23psql

    "Police inquiry into Post Office and Horizon may run out of cash
    Officers have told victims there will have to be ‘tough decisions’ on Operation Olympos despite the number of criminal suspects doubling to eight"

    There never is. The British state is like an abuser who gets away with years of abuse but is never held properly accountable: it is untrustworthy, incompetent, malicious and unwilling / incapable of change, no matter what promises it makes or how many apologies are dragged out of it. We have a Potemkin justice system. And the inquiry reports lead to little more than a lot of bad headlines for a few days but no real change.

    There is absolutely no point any more to any of it.

    Budget eh?

    Sorry I forgot to add that to my list -

    Prediction - "It turned out that there 146 senior people potentially chargeable in matters arising from the Post Office. 3 are dead. 112 have taken early retirement. The rest have been diagnosed with stress and are in the luxury sections of various in-patient facilities paid for from their Post Office packages. So it would not be in the interests of justice to pursue them further. We have charged the lady who cleans on Thursdays with misconduct in a public office."

    #NU10K
    Oh look

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

    Hillsborough enquiry staggers to the line….

    - the final report is being “trimmed” from thousands of pages to 400. In the interests of clarity
    - the full report will be archived, not released
    - all police officers involved are dead or retired.

    So why, you ask, not release everything?

    Well, *after* Hillsborough, for years, people in the system lied and covered up. Some of them are still alive. Some of them are still working in government.

    Many will be The Right Sort. A Safe Pair of Hands.

    #NU10K
    What more is there to know?

    The Police f*cked up, then they lied to cover this up, the Government supported them, and various members of the great and the good tried to write reports telling us all what we knew already but were hampered by concerns that they might upset too many of those who were to blame.

    Need we spend more money on this?
    Spycops is into its 10th year.
    We're getting rid of juries because just having a judge will be quicker...
    There was a lengthy interview with a judge early this morning on Today, who reckoned it would make only a marginal difference to speed of trials. And that the only way to seriously tackle the backlog would be to provide more resources, judges and court time.
    (He had participated in a successful local exercise to reduce backlog, but it ended when they lost a couple of judges.)
    As pointed out by several actual courtroom participants, here, there is a huge amount of faffing about in courtrooms. In classic OR methodology, speed up all the non-expert stuff.

    For example, the screens/no-screens for witnesses. What about the following -

    - screens attached/built into the witness stand. Slide up and down. Manual - think sash window. 2 seconds to pull up or down.
    - The giving-evidence-by-video-from-a-room thing. Each court provided with one (some courtrooms don’t have them, so they have to switch courts etc). Redundant systems, tested and maintained before sittings start.
  • dunhamdunham Posts: 61

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for six months while on JSA
    Go back and read what you wrote. You're demanding an increase in benefits for people who are well enough off not to need UC, while demanding the 2CC for people who are not well enough off not to need UC. That's *reverse* means testing.

    If that's Modern Tory policy, heaven help the party.
    No as you also cannot claim child benefit if your income is over £80k. It is working parents who are on middle income who earn less than that and don’t claim UC who would benefit from increased standard child benefit and given our low 1.4 fertility rate now that is why I back a rise in standard child benefit.

    It would be a fantastic Tory pro middle income families policy
    It would be unacceptable in the present climate

    The two most unpopular decisions in the Budget according to YouGov were freezing thresholds and the 2 child benefit cap as the public draw the line on more taxes and benefits

    Badenoch is correct to say she will reinstate the 2 child cap but needs to go further with abolishing the triple lock and means testing the state pension as part of a reduction in welfare spending and not adding to benefits other than by inflation
    Means testing the state pension, as with other means testing, just creates an administrative burden. The better off already pay 40-60% tax on it.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,420

    Word clouds are terrific for people who can't string a sentence together.

    What would make someone respond 'Absolutely' to a question about the budget?

    Some ideas: to emphasise the word they choose: Absolutely wonderful, or Absolutely awful; or they might be agreeing with a person they're with: Absolutely, me too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,635

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    I don't disagree - just pointing out that the Mail will struggle to find those households.

    The other thing that's interesting is what the Conservatives do. I had a flick through affected households by council area and it's not a bad proxy for areas where Reform are doing well. That's why Farage - by far our canniest politician - has come out in favour. Whether the Conservatives follow or not will be a signal into their strategy for the next 3 years.
    Kemi has been clear the Conservatives would have kept the 2 child benefit cap. Though they should also back an increase in standard child benefit for most parents while keeping the two child benefit cap for parents on universal credit
    But many people on UC are actually working ... your proposal is self-contradictory to a considerable degree.
    Many aren’t whereas the vast majority on standard child benefit work and a parent out of work can only claim it for 91 days while on JSA
    Almost three quarters of children in poverty are in working households. This Tory division into strivers and shirkers is a fundamentally dishonest narrative.
    It’s nearly as fundamentally dishonest as using the word “poverty” to mean “inequality”.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,166

    Eabhal said:

    I suspect the government have lit a ticking time bomb with the removal of the benefits cap.

    Every time a story about a large non-working family comes out (there will be plenty), with taxpayers paying - it will be laid at their door.

    They haven't removed the benefit cap (£22k); they've removed the two-child limit.

    So stories about families on £60k worth of benefits won't be common*. Some child poverty think tanks have pointed out that the £22k limit significantly limits the effect of the change - they're not wrong, particularly somewhere like London where the just housing element could be £30k.

    *There are a number of exemptions, particularly around disability benefits, but I reckon DWP will tighten that up.
    If you're explaining, you're losing. And removing the two-child limit alone is politically damaging.

    Taxes are going up by £3-4 billion to pay for it, and everyone knows that money is going on extra welfare and coming from their paycheck.
    If you're explaining, you're losing is true as a piece of practical politics, but it's pretty depressing as an insight into the human condition.

    OK, I admit it. I'm on Team "It's probably more complicated than that", because of my brain function, skills and background. But many of the problems we have aren't just 'yay' or 'boo'. They are how do you trade-off two things that are both desirable but where you can only have one. Or two options which are both a bit bad, but you have to choose one.

    To use Victorian language, how do you balance the needs of the 'deserving' poor with the reasonable wish of the taxpayer to not fund the 'undeserving' out of scarce resources? After all, a lot of the families benefiting from the change have got working parents, or didn't expect to be in the circumstances they were in when baby 3 was born.

    Besides, the papers don't need to find people on high benefits. They can just recylce a think tank report that notes that if you are getting maxed-out disability benefits, you can get the equivalent of £71k a household. Except you don't want to explain the bit in italics. Because if you are explaining, you're losing.
    I think this comes back to the sense of "not taking the piss". The British people will put up with a lot if they think that it's being done honestly and with good intent and people aren't taking the piss.

    However it might have come about, the majority of people have lost that trust that welfare recipients are honest and aren't taking the piss. The same with asylum seekers. The same also with landlords and the wealthy. The targets might be different, but the underlying political logic is the same. These people are taking the piss and I'm not putting up with it anymore.

    So, with the two-child limit we have earnest arguments being made in support of getting rid of it, but the majority view is that those people are taking the piss. When it comes to higher-income taxpayers we have different people making earnest arguments about why it is self-defeating to increase taxation on the wealthy, but the majority view is that those people are taking the piss, and so there's no sympathy for them.

    I don't think there was ever a time when most people made decisions on the basis of rational argument rooted in facts, but there was a time when people had more societal trust, and didn't think that everyone else was taking the piss quite so much. If we could get back there then a lot of the negative emotion could be taken out of politics and there would be room for more rational decision-making to come to the fore.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,154
  • dunhamdunham Posts: 61
    Means testing also creates cliff edges, where earning a penny more than the threshold often leads to loss of the whole benefit.
Sign In or Register to comment.