Whilst I remain of the view that the current cabinet is a massive improvement on their recent predecessors. Both in competence and direction of travel. But it's ever harder to feel enthusiastic and to defend them. As my wife put it: "I wish Labour would sound more like Labour."
......there are some cuts here that are just wrong and real people will suffer
"Then there is the Office for Budget Responsibility, whose fluctuating and often inaccurate growth projections have made the chancellor’s life a misery. Those figures alone enrage the Treasury but it is the watchdog’s approach to migration that has sparked a new conversation in Downing Street. Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, is among those who has come to believe it assumes — wrongly — that all immigration is good for growth."
So the OBR's model is both sacrosanct and a guy with a marketing degree can alter it at will (if he doesn't like what it says about immigration).
Given how often the OBRs figures - not just forecasts but also calculations of past economic performance over a given time span - are altered he does have a point.
Given how often the OBRs figures - not just forecasts but also calculations of past economic performance over a given time span - are altered he does have a point.
He really doesn't. The assumptions made about immigration (and arguably the 'wrongly' is in the wrong place) are probably the most correct part of their model.
He doesn't have any objections to the rest of their model. It's narrowly about his own project to move Labour to the right on social issues.
Presumably, up to the point he was arrested he would have passed a crb check.
So could the vast, vast majority of people blacklisted for being too left wing or suggesting tactical voting was a good idea. Vetting candidates goes beyond checking if they're known criminals.
Presumably, up to the point he was arrested he would have passed a crb check.
So could the vast, vast majority of people blacklisted for being too left wing or suggesting tactical voting was a good idea. Vetting candidates goes beyond checking if they're known criminals.
Of course, but unless it turned out to be another everyone knew and no one said situation - we can not assume any vetting process would pick up a historic concealed crime.
(Also, I am reminding myself we need to be careful what we write about this as this an active police investigation and we don’t want to undermine the trial.)
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
That's a not very helpful article. There is huge difference between the government watering down proposals and the (correct) process of vetting legislation leading to speculation that the government is watering something down.
It makes for good copy but it's nonsense. Even the article makes clear that this is all speculation - apart from missing the date, which is a shame.
I am all for holding the government to account for what they do or don't do but this holding them to account for speculation is ridiculous and helps no one.
That's a not very helpful article. There is huge difference between the government watering down proposals and the (correct) process of vetting legislation leading to speculation that the government is watering something down.
Is it your contention that this part is entirely made up?
"Despite Starmer’s promises, families have been told that the government’s new draft is based more on public authorities signing up to a charter, without strong legal enforcement, and does not include the funding for legal representation. A government media briefing last week that said the draft law could have led to civil servants being prosecuted for telling a white lie about being late for work to bosses has prompted fury from families, as it has always been clear that criminal sanctions would be for police or public officials misleading the public."
I am all for holding the government to account
I presume this will be more than just comments of 'this is very troubling'.
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
Looks like it's for people living in or near to London. Starmer will be wanting to work out how many free tickets he needs
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
Personally I'm quite excited to be able to go to Universal Studios without having to renew my US visa.
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
I've not seen anything to suggest it relates to the UK government*. It would be the local authority that granted planning permission, and including improvements to local rail infrastructure sounds quite like the sort of horse-trading between developers and planning departments to clear up potential local impacts (which would include traffic from people visiting).
* Generally UK government can over-rule local authorities to grant permission for something considered "national infrastructure" if the local government turns it down, and potentially stopping something that has local government approval. Some major infrastructure developments (eg: power stations, national grid improvements, road and rail) go straight to national government and bypass local planning processes - which is something that IMO should not be permitted, local people need to have their say.
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
Looks like it's for people living in or near to London. Starmer will be wanting to work out how many free tickets he needs
I grew up in Bedford - well, just outside it. I'd not describe it as "near London". It looks as much to East Anglia and the South Midlands as it does the South East - Northampton isn't far away and Leicester is no further than London. It's not even Home Counties.
It's close enough to London that, especially with improved rail, the Universal park will get people staying in London coming out for the day to visit it. Which is what happens with the WB (Harry Potter) Studios tour in Watford. Where the big local benefit is felt is when people stay in the area, and visit other local attractions. The proximity to Watford may mean that happens, because I can see people visiting the Universal park also interested in the Harry Potter tour and possibly staying local to one or the other and travel between them is more attractive than staying in London and travelling out to both (though, with all the museums and historic attractions in London there probably will still be a lot of people doing that).
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
I've not seen anything to suggest it relates to the UK government*. It would be the local authority that granted planning permission, and including improvements to local rail infrastructure sounds quite like the sort of horse-trading between developers and planning departments to clear up potential local impacts (which would include traffic from people visiting).
* Generally UK government can over-rule local authorities to grant permission for something considered "national infrastructure" if the local government turns it down, and potentially stopping something that has local government approval. Some major infrastructure developments (eg: power stations, national grid improvements, road and rail) go straight to national government and bypass local planning processes - which is something that IMO should not be permitted, local people need to have their say.
Universal have been talking to both local and national governments. They need the National government to approve it.
They have just approved a Universal Theme Park in Bedford. That will bring jobs and money into the area and the country. This has been on the cards for a while now.
Looks like it's for people living in or near to London. Starmer will be wanting to work out how many free tickets he needs
I grew up in Bedford - well, just outside it. I'd not describe it as "near London". It looks as much to East Anglia and the South Midlands as it does the South East - Northampton isn't far away and Leicester is no further than London. It's not even Home Counties.
I used to work in London with someone who lived in Bedford. It's an easy run in on the train. It was probably faster for him to get to work than it was for people in some of the suburbs.
I am sure re-nationalisation would not have been on the cards were it not for Putin and Trump... this is a military-industrial type move, surely...
Definitely from one angle.
From another, regardless of the military angle, being the first G7 economy to deindustrialise to the point of not having any blast furnaces feels like an experiment I don’t want to try.
I am sure re-nationalisation would not have been on the cards were it not for Putin and Trump... this is a military-industrial type move, surely...
Well, they aren't meeting to discuss nationalising Thames Water.
Nor did they meet to discuss rescuing the oil refining capacity of Grangemouth or saving jobs when the Port Talbot blast furnaces closed. Is there any relationship between Scunthorpe being in England while Grangemouth and Port Talbot are in other nations?
I am sure re-nationalisation would not have been on the cards were it not for Putin and Trump... this is a military-industrial type move, surely...
From another, regardless of the military angle, being the first G7 economy to deindustrialise to the point of not having any blast furnaces feels like an experiment I don’t want to try.
Even without the military angle, that kind of thinking needs to be a bit deeper than 'have blast furnaces, get cargo' though, and I don't see this level of joined up thinking happening currently.
I am sure re-nationalisation would not have been on the cards were it not for Putin and Trump... this is a military-industrial type move, surely...
Well, they aren't meeting to discuss nationalising Thames Water.
Nor did they meet to discuss rescuing the oil refining capacity of Grangemouth or saving jobs when the Port Talbot blast furnaces closed. Is there any relationship between Scunthorpe being in England while Grangemouth and Port Talbot are in other nations?
I think it’s timing. Not Grangemouth, but I’m pretty confident that if Port Talbot was failing *now* (ie after the complete destabilising of the international economy and in an era of supercharged protectionism and rearmament), they’d be nationalising it too.
It goes back to the fundamental point: you cannot have a stable economy based on ephemeral "services" and shopping. You need to make stuff, support R&D and ai to add value to everything that passes through your transport hubs. Look at Singapore: they took a fantastically well located trading hub and understood you make more by doing something to the goods that land on your shores, rather than just trading the raw materials, hence their successful electronics and petrochemicals industries. And zero tolerance of corruption and "sweeteners" is vital.
I suspect the Chinese owners of British Steel did not expect the government to do this, I think they thought they had them over a barrel. I also doubt the Chinese government did not have a view on what the owners should be doing in their negotiations with the UK government.
My suspicious mind wonders if negotiations going down the toilet has anything to do with the Trump steel tariffs, and China wanting to be able to sell more of its steel output elsewhere.
I think it’s timing. Not Grangemouth, but I’m pretty confident that if Port Talbot was failing *now* (ie after the complete destabilising of the international economy and in an era of supercharged protectionism and rearmament), they’d be nationalising it too.
Yes, and also at that point, it wasn’t the last set of blast furnaces in the UK. (And isn’t Tata Steel building a massive electric furnace there for future production ?)
I think the total amount of steel produced by Scunthorpe is small potatoes for China but I think that politically speaking China would have been well-pleased to see the plant closed, though probably not a massive deal for them.
I believe Scunthorpe produces Virgin Steel. Used a lot weapons and other things the government has to do.
The new electric machines for other places are going to take a decent time to come on line and will not use as many jobs.
If blast furnaces aren't shut down in a controlled way, the molten metal inside solidifies, rendering them unusable thereafter. Without the sufficient raw materials, the shutdown can't be correctly controlled.
Anyone know why once the Scunthorpe furnaces are 'switched off' they can't be 'switched on' again?
As said, they’re a bit like an eternal flame - once lit, they stay lit. Shutting them down properly for reuse is impossible without the fuel (it’s a very controlled process) and they’re on the verge of shut down because they haven’t got the fuel. Hence this rather through the looking glass situation where the Royal Navy might have to escort coking coal*. If it’s not already too late.
*I think in government minds this will speed the process up because like a police escort blue lights and sirens will make other ships get out of the way as the coke speeds past. The sea doesn’t work like that…
Dredging the memory banks to a school trip to a steel works in the 1960s, I seem to recall that a controlled shut-down of a blast furnace - I think the correct term is banking - takes about 5-6 weeks, there is no "switch". Similarly, getting one going again is far from simple - it requires the banked furnace to be cleared out, and then layering of the raw materials over a similarly lengthy period.
I don't think the government should look at this issue in isolation. Someone needs to join the dots of what is going on with re-supplying our armed forces and actually make a plan. I fear at present it is just a case of Save our Steel without a coherent broad plan for the next 10+ years. And on that note there are other abandoned plants in various industries that it would be sensible to think about acquiring, re-purposing and bringing into production.
Neal Lawson of the soft-left group Compass has an article on Labour's current strategy and positioning, pointing to the danger of trying to tail Reform to the right:
"McSweeney will present a choice between Labour or Reform and bargain that enough people will once again hold their nose. But the politics of the lesser evil will simply delay a bigger crisis of British politics"
(and I'd add, make the ultimate crisis much worse).
*The exact details are still unclear and the headlines of the 'government's own figures show...' are misleading as that's not what the report they link to shows. It's more complex than that.
I was about to post another link, and then remembered I'd made a note to go back and check this assertion:
"Overall, it is estimated that in 2029/30 there will be 3.2 million families – some
current recipients and some future recipients - who will financially lose as a result of
this package, with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation. There
are also estimated to be 3.8 million families - some current recipients and some
future recipients - who will financially gain from this package, with an average gain of
£420 per year compared to inflation"
Note that the £420 is made up - in part - by an uplift to UC, and in part by the assumption that people will be able to find employment. Even if all 3.2 million families who lose out are included in the 3.8 million families who gain, the overall picture would still appear to be negative.
Despite it being so early has the Labour government shot themselves in the foot. With the what they have done re Children, pensioners and the disabled is it already too late for them to get back on track?
Despite it being so early has the Labour government shot themselves in the foot. With the what they have done re Children, pensioners and the disabled is it already too late for them to get back on track?
They are currently explicit in signalling that they will not backtrack:
"Government sources said charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour’s plans.
“If they still think we’re going to scrap the cap then they’re listening to the wrong people. We’re simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said."
So they aren't going to scrap it because it polls well with voters they think might be tempted to vote Reform.
It may seem crass to point this out as lifting children out of poverty should be an aim in itself, but this policy will also costs more money in the medium to long term. It's well established that child poverty leads to all sorts out of additional costs to the state in terms of law enforcement and health. But this is what happens in the absence of a clear ideology - you are constantly driven by very narrow electoral concerns (which may not even make sense in the aggregate).
Even if they were to to change to a more traditional Labour Party what they have done to vulnerable groups will stay with them. They decided to go for some of the worse off people in the country. That will not be forgotten, no matter how well they do fr now on.
Comments
This
So the OBR's model is both sacrosanct and a guy with a marketing degree can alter it at will (if he doesn't like what it says about immigration).
He really doesn't. The assumptions made about immigration (and arguably the 'wrongly' is in the wrong place) are probably the most correct part of their model.
He doesn't have any objections to the rest of their model. It's narrowly about his own project to move Labour to the right on social issues.
(Contenting warning: CSA allegations)
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25067278.labour-mp-dan-norris-arrested-suspicion-rape
If and when he has to resign as a MP, we might see the glorious return of Sir Jacob.
Presumably, up to the point he was arrested he would have passed a crb check.
So could the vast, vast majority of people blacklisted for being too left wing or suggesting tactical voting was a good idea. Vetting candidates goes beyond checking if they're known criminals.
That's a strange new use of the word "glorious" that I wasn't previously aware of.
Of course, but unless it turned out to be another everyone knew and no one said situation - we can not assume any vetting process would pick up a historic concealed crime.
(Also, I am reminding myself we need to be careful what we write about this as this an active police investigation and we don’t want to undermine the trial.)
An unalloyed good thing. I know of which I speak.
AFZ
That's a not very helpful article. There is huge difference between the government watering down proposals and the (correct) process of vetting legislation leading to speculation that the government is watering something down.
It makes for good copy but it's nonsense. Even the article makes clear that this is all speculation - apart from missing the date, which is a shame.
I am all for holding the government to account for what they do or don't do but this holding them to account for speculation is ridiculous and helps no one.
Is it your contention that this part is entirely made up?
"Despite Starmer’s promises, families have been told that the government’s new draft is based more on public authorities signing up to a charter, without strong legal enforcement, and does not include the funding for legal representation. A government media briefing last week that said the draft law could have led to civil servants being prosecuted for telling a white lie about being late for work to bosses has prompted fury from families, as it has always been clear that criminal sanctions would be for police or public officials misleading the public."
I presume this will be more than just comments of 'this is very troubling'.
Personally I'm quite excited to be able to go to Universal Studios without having to renew my US visa.
Hmm. "Bread and circuses" comes to mind.
* Generally UK government can over-rule local authorities to grant permission for something considered "national infrastructure" if the local government turns it down, and potentially stopping something that has local government approval. Some major infrastructure developments (eg: power stations, national grid improvements, road and rail) go straight to national government and bypass local planning processes - which is something that IMO should not be permitted, local people need to have their say.
I grew up in Bedford - well, just outside it. I'd not describe it as "near London". It looks as much to East Anglia and the South Midlands as it does the South East - Northampton isn't far away and Leicester is no further than London. It's not even Home Counties.
Universal have been talking to both local and national governments. They need the National government to approve it.
Well, they aren't meeting to discuss nationalising Thames Water.
I used to work in London with someone who lived in Bedford. It's an easy run in on the train. It was probably faster for him to get to work than it was for people in some of the suburbs.
Definitely from one angle.
From another, regardless of the military angle, being the first G7 economy to deindustrialise to the point of not having any blast furnaces feels like an experiment I don’t want to try.
Even without the military angle, that kind of thinking needs to be a bit deeper than 'have blast furnaces, get cargo' though, and I don't see this level of joined up thinking happening currently.
I think it’s timing. Not Grangemouth, but I’m pretty confident that if Port Talbot was failing *now* (ie after the complete destabilising of the international economy and in an era of supercharged protectionism and rearmament), they’d be nationalising it too.
My suspicious mind wonders if negotiations going down the toilet has anything to do with the Trump steel tariffs, and China wanting to be able to sell more of its steel output elsewhere.
Yes, and also at that point, it wasn’t the last set of blast furnaces in the UK. (And isn’t Tata Steel building a massive electric furnace there for future production ?)
There are multitudes of working people on universal credit....
The biggest spend on benefits by a country mile is on old age pensions...
I think they wanted the commercial information, and possibly some the intellectual property owned by British Steel.
I doubt the plan to convert to arc furnaces ever went far once they figured out the cost of electricity in the UK.
If the jobs are in coal mining the savings are likely more than outweighed by the healthcare costs and associates ill-health benefits down the line.
The new electric machines for other places are going to take a decent time to come on line and will not use as many jobs.
As said, they’re a bit like an eternal flame - once lit, they stay lit. Shutting them down properly for reuse is impossible without the fuel (it’s a very controlled process) and they’re on the verge of shut down because they haven’t got the fuel. Hence this rather through the looking glass situation where the Royal Navy might have to escort coking coal*. If it’s not already too late.
*I think in government minds this will speed the process up because like a police escort blue lights and sirens will make other ships get out of the way as the coke speeds past. The sea doesn’t work like that…
I don't think the government should look at this issue in isolation. Someone needs to join the dots of what is going on with re-supplying our armed forces and actually make a plan. I fear at present it is just a case of Save our Steel without a coherent broad plan for the next 10+ years. And on that note there are other abandoned plants in various industries that it would be sensible to think about acquiring, re-purposing and bringing into production.
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/04/14/what-is-the-point-of-labour-winning-the-next-general-election-if-it-governs-as-reform-lite/
As he says:
"McSweeney will present a choice between Labour or Reform and bargain that enough people will once again hold their nose. But the politics of the lesser evil will simply delay a bigger crisis of British politics"
(and I'd add, make the ultimate crisis much worse).
I was about to post another link, and then remembered I'd made a note to go back and check this assertion:
From the link here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e667fe4a226ab6c41b1fe2/spring-statement-2025-health-and-disability-benefit-reforms-impacts.pdf
"Overall, it is estimated that in 2029/30 there will be 3.2 million families – some
current recipients and some future recipients - who will financially lose as a result of
this package, with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation. There
are also estimated to be 3.8 million families - some current recipients and some
future recipients - who will financially gain from this package, with an average gain of
£420 per year compared to inflation"
Note that the £420 is made up - in part - by an uplift to UC, and in part by the assumption that people will be able to find employment. Even if all 3.2 million families who lose out are included in the 3.8 million families who gain, the overall picture would still appear to be negative.
Now to today's link:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/disability-benefit-cuts-pip-labour-cancer-arthritis/
This builds on an FoI request to the DWP here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/personal_independence_payment_pi_7/response/2989270/attach/3/Response FOI2025 24990.pdf
So essentially; a large number of people currently receiving standard pip would not qualify for it under the proposed new rules.
They are currently explicit in signalling that they will not backtrack:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/22/ministers-privately-ruling-out-scrapping-two-child-benefits-cap
"Government sources said charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour’s plans.
“If they still think we’re going to scrap the cap then they’re listening to the wrong people. We’re simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said."
So they aren't going to scrap it because it polls well with voters they think might be tempted to vote Reform.
It may seem crass to point this out as lifting children out of poverty should be an aim in itself, but this policy will also costs more money in the medium to long term. It's well established that child poverty leads to all sorts out of additional costs to the state in terms of law enforcement and health. But this is what happens in the absence of a clear ideology - you are constantly driven by very narrow electoral concerns (which may not even make sense in the aggregate).