Immigration appears to be more of a concern for people where there hasn't been a significant recent rapid demographic change, and have little or no direct experience of recent migrants. Those who have personal experience of immigrants are generally less concerned (because they see them every day and know they're people just like us and not a load of criminals and scroungers).
Immigration appears to be more of a concern for people where there hasn't been a significant recent rapid demographic change, and have little or no direct experience of recent migrants. Those who have personal experience of immigrants are generally less concerned (because they see them every day and know they're people just like us and not a load of criminals and scroungers).
I’m afraid that is not my experience of living in Luton where less than a third of the population are White British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton. My immigrant friends in my 1970s and 1980s childhood (Indian Muslim best friend, Ugandan Hindu friendship group) were subjected to racist abuse on a daily basis, and I was abused for being a white girl associating with them, and the mosque regularly had a pig’s head placed on it. It was also the home of Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League. It is also a very deprived area - the early 1990s riots were on the estate I was brought up on, Marsh Farm.
Immigration appears to be more of a concern for people where there hasn't been a significant recent rapid demographic change, and have little or no direct experience of recent migrants. Those who have personal experience of immigrants are generally less concerned (because they see them every day and know they're people just like us and not a load of criminals and scroungers).
The experience in Lincolnshire, in Boston and Spalding and the like, suggests it's a bit more complex than that. Now, a lot of these places have also been C/conservative for decades, so when significant numbers of Eastern European migrants showed up they were primed to object, even though those same migrants breathed live into communities that had been struggling. Add in austerity so that the influx of newcomers coincided with the deterioration in public services and you have a toxic brew.
To bring this back to PIP and disability benefits, there appears to be a deliberate attempt by the government to mislead the public on exactly how PIP works:
Around 50 seconds in "Lots of my constituents worry about coming off PIP and into work ..", except it's not related to employment, and plenty of people are only able to work because they are in receipt of PIP.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
If they were clueless to start with, their civil servants should have brought them up to speed by now!
Aye, but there's none so blind as them that will not see. The likes of Reeves in particular have it as an article of dogma that a significant number of people on working-age benefits are skivers.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury.
It what way has anyone tried to ban an act from performing at Glastonbury?
Asked by The Sun on Sunday if he thinks Kneecap should play, the PM, left, said: “No I don’t."
Now, of course, the Prime Minister expressing an opinion is very different to anyone else doing so. However, in no way does "I think someone charged with a terrorist offence shouldn't be performing at a major festival" equate with a government banning a musician.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury. I've definitely not got time for all of Kneecap's views but it's extremely clear
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury.
It what way has anyone tried to ban an act from performing at Glastonbury?
Asked by The Sun on Sunday if he thinks Kneecap should play, the PM, left, said: “No I don’t."
Now, of course, the Prime Minister expressing an opinion is very different to anyone else doing so. However, in no way does "I think someone charged with a terrorist offence shouldn't be performing at a major festival" equate with a government banning a musician.
AFZ
Charged, not convicted, of a crime Ó hAnnaidh denies committing (although also, waving a flag shouldn't be a crime much less be considered an act of terrorism).
'Asked by the Sun, external if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, Keir Starmer said: "No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this."' - to me, "we need to come down really clearly on this" suggests taking some concrete action rather than merely expressing disapproval. Given the speed at which the government has rushed to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation makes it very clear that the government is happy to crush protest groups with anti-terror legislation.
Waving a flag isn't an act of terrorism. Spraying a plane with paint isn't an act of terrorism. Even if Kneecap supported Hezbollah (and they say that they don't), merely supporting them wouldn't be an act of terrorism. I should stress that Hezbollah are awful and reasonably seen as a terrorist group themselves, but merely expressing agreement with them isn't an act of terrorism.
"we need to come down really clearly on this" suggests taking some concrete action rather than merely expressing disapproval.
Your interpretation of the Prime Minister's words do not equate to concrete action.
Waving a Hezbollah flag is not an act of terrorism. Of course it isn't. But clearly expressing support for a proscribed organisation is an offence - hence an ongoing court case for an individual accused of doing so.
It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the Prime Minister here and the law in question. But to suggest that the PM saying he thinks it inappropriate for someone who is facing such a charge to perform at such an event is the most draconian thing ever is not reasonable.
'Asked by the Sun, external if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, Keir Starmer said: "No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this."' - to me, "we need to come down really clearly on this" suggests taking some concrete action rather than merely expressing disapproval.
I suspect in context it's an attempt to give a fairly clear signal to the BBC (who will be broadcasting selections of the event).
Given the speed at which the government has rushed to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation makes it very clear that the government is happy to crush protest groups with anti-terror legislation.
Yeah, quite, so far - as far as we can tell - New Labour's counter-terrorism legislation has been used in fairly carefully targetted ways. Braveman moved in the direction of criminalising protest but everything she did was through public order legislation. If the Home Secretary is suddenly willing to use counter-terrorism legislation, we are in new territory.
More generally; a question to those on the centre-left who believed Labour could be pushed left in government, where are the liberal tendencies of the Starmer government and Starmer as an individual?
There's no mileage in defending this kind of thing because whichever way you look at it, it's Starmer's illiberal instincts on display as usual. He's a total Mary Whitehouse type.
Starmer is -54 for his personal rating in the polls. This posturing to The Sun doesn't help and the sad thing is, he probably thinks it does.
Meanwhile he's backed Donald Trump's bombing- I'll take the popular beat combo with the dodgy flag over Keir Starmer wrapped in a flag anyday. He's the real danger.
More generally; a question to those on the centre-left who believed Labour could be pushed left in government, where are the liberal tendencies of the Starmer government and Starmer as an individual?
Did anyone actually believe this? I thought it was just a stick used to beat those on the left into voting for the lesser† of two evils. Nobody actually thought you could get a Labour government to move to the left after *waves at every Labour government in history but especially the last one*.
†though frankly it's up for debate now whether this is the lesser of the two evils. They've done things worse than the tories did but it's hard to know if the tories would have done the same once the threat of the election had passed.
@AFZ - I didn't say it was the most draconian thing ever. But even before the PM decided to back the US bombing Iran, it seemed obvious to me how anti-terror laws were being weaponised against pro-Palestine activists. I do think Starmer is desperate enough for it to all go away that he would take action against Kneecap.
@Louise the thing that gets me is that surely Starmer isn't dense enough to think that potentially being dragged by the US into a war in the Middle East - yet again - will go down well with the public.
As best I understand it- he's obsessed with the tiny group of voters he thinks can be switched from Reform to Labour but there are many fewer who would consider that switch than he thinks.
He thinks bleeding support to the left will be fine - they will all come home at the election but I think he is wrong about that - many people are completely disgusted with Labour under him.
Personally I think Labour have to get rid of him if they want to recover against Reform in the polls - his appeasement strategy is both morally wrong and in practical terms disastrous.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury.
How else should I read what you wrote?
The statement on US bombing, I have huge issues with. I have recently resigned my party membership as I mentioned. I am far from a happy camper.
But the lack of objectivity and exaggeration here are just ridiculous.
More generally; a question to those on the centre-left who believed Labour could be pushed left in government, where are the liberal tendencies of the Starmer government and Starmer as an individual?
Did anyone actually believe this? I thought it was just a stick used to beat those on the left into voting for the lesser† of two evils. Nobody actually thought you could get a Labour government to move to the left after *waves at every Labour government in history but especially the last one
I think parts of the soft-left believed in out of desperation, certain centrist commentators believed it because they are just dumb, and for the rest it was largely stick.
In any case it's worth constantly repeating, to ensure what they did last time isn't forgotten.
I should also note that in many ways using counter-terrorism legislation against protest groups goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury.
How else should I read what you wrote?
The statement on US bombing, I have huge issues with. I have recently resigned my party membership as I mentioned. I am far from a happy camper.
But the lack of objectivity and exaggeration here are just ridiculous.
I don't know if anyone should be objective about a situation where anti-terror legislation is being weaponised against people who are very clearly not terrorists.
I agreed with @chrisstiles saying that Labour's behaviour "goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary". Neither he nor I stated that anything was "the most draconian ever". I don't see how that isn't an exaggeration, but alarm at the reaction to a band playing at Glastonbury is. I'm very happy to be proven wrong but I don't recall Braverman making insinuations about who could and couldn't play at Glastonbury.
I accept that the reality may be closer to what you think than to what I think, but I do sincerely see Starmer's statement about Kneecap as a sign of potential restrictions on their performance from the government. Maybe this is just an ND misunderstanding on my part (and apologies if it is) but to me "exaggeration" suggests not sincerely believing that something is true, which I do wrt Starmer and Kneecap.
As best I understand it- he's obsessed with the tiny group of voters he thinks can be switched from Reform to Labour but there are many fewer who would consider that switch than he thinks.
He thinks bleeding support to the left will be fine - they will all come home at the election but I think he is wrong about that - many people are completely disgusted with Labour under him.
Personally I think Labour have to get rid of him if they want to recover against Reform in the polls - his appeasement strategy is both morally wrong and in practical terms disastrous.
The issue that leaves me scratching my head is why he thinks Reform voters would be pro-war in a situation that potentially involves British troops. I think both Farage and Starmer might get a nasty shock with how unpopular joining an American war would be. UKIP voters and UKIP sympathisers during the second Gulf War were always demanding "bring our boys home" (and I can't fault them for that of course).
The very noisy very-online right tend to ape and support the Trumpists - so you get a mixture of Islamophobia and that peculiar kind of right wing Zionism that combines utterly gung-ho cheer leading for Israel with being properly antisemitic, pro Christian nationalist and Nazi hugging. So I would think bombing Iran on behalf of Israel might be superficially popular with that type and their commentariat - but I'm not going over to GB News or Twitter to look though!
And like you I don't think it'll be actually popular with ordinary voters. I don't think it'll poll well in America either.
AIUI there is a split in the far right between isolationists and hawkists. Strictly I believe MAGAites are isolationists, but the lure of looking tough is strong among the fascist-curious.
The very noisy very-online right tend to ape and support the Trumpists - so you get a mixture of Islamophobia and that peculiar kind of right wing Zionism that combines utterly gung-ho cheer leading for Israel with being properly antisemitic, pro Christian nationalist and Nazi hugging. So I would think bombing Iran on behalf of Israel might be superficially popular with that type and their commentariat - but I'm not going over to GB News or Twitter to look though!
And like you I don't think it'll be actually popular with ordinary voters. I don't think it'll poll well in America either.
Overt religiosity of any kind in politicians also goes down really really badly with the UK public in general - also I think the UK right (even online) are much less inclined to be pro-Israel and much more open with their antisemitism.
Labour is leaking supporters on the left. Me included. Chasing Reform will not get us back. I hope we don’t send planes to help Trump. He is bad enough without our help.
I should stress that Hezbollah are awful and reasonably seen as a terrorist group themselves, but merely expressing agreement with them isn't an act of terrorism.
Terrorist organizations, as a rule, don't exist because a group of bored people like a spot of light terrorism of an afternoon. They tend to exist as a response to some perceived injustice, and one can certainly discuss the rights and wrongs of the feelings of injustice separately from the terrorism.
In this case, Mr. Ó hAnnaidh displayed the Hezbollah flag on stage at a gig. To any reasonable eye, that's a statement of support for Hezbollah, rather than a statement of opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza.
Lots of things support terrorism without actually being terrorism themselves. Raising money (by whatever method) for a terrorist organization isn't terrorism of itself, but clearly aids and enables terrorism, and deserves the same punishment. Where you draw the line between expressing an opinion and giving aid and comfort to a terrorist organization might be an interesting question, but I'd argue that waving the flag of that organization looks like unequivocal support, and would tend to find it on the wrong side of that line.
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Them being in charge. That's it. That's as far as it goes.
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Them being in charge. That's it. That's as far as it goes.
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Them being in charge. That's it. That's as far as it goes.
Well, that's politicians for you, isn't it?
Well no, actually, not all politicians. Say what you like about Michael Gove, for example, but he had views on how he thought education should work and pursued them. Even Blair, with all his well coiffed vacuity, had a plan even if it was just "let capitalism run riot and hope we can cream off enough of the profits to fund public services".
I definitely think that waving a flag of Hezbollah is wrong but I don't think it should be a crime.
That's a reasonable position. But it is a crime.
The problem there is that with the current government it only seems like a matter of time before thinking that's a reasonable position also becomes a crime.
Labour MPs are grouping together to try and change or stop the disabled people’s bill currently going through parliament.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Them being in charge. That's it. That's as far as it goes.
Well, that's politicians for you, isn't it?
Well no, actually, not all politicians. Say what you like about Michael Gove, for example, but he had views on how he thought education should work and pursued them. Even Blair, with all his well coiffed vacuity, had a plan even if it was just "let capitalism run riot and hope we can cream off enough of the profits to fund public services".
Indeed. Civil service friends of mine across various govt departments actually liked working for Gove (at justice, education and I think communities) because unlike some secretaries of state he was clear in what he was trying to do (and apparently decent to work for).
People might not have liked what he was trying to do, but it was nevertheless usually clear, coherent, and (to an extent) reasonably logical on its own terms.
That he might have nevertheless been wrong is a different argument…
So Labour are backing down somewhat on their PIP policy. Those who have it now will not lose it, but new claimants will not get it. They appear to have avoided the rebellion, but not totally.
A very early voting intention poll puts Reform as just and only just winners. They would not have enough to form a government on their own, even with help from another small party it would be practically impossible. Labour need to change now. A lot of blame is put at not just Starmer’s door but also his main advisers. Starmer is still not liked by the voters.
So Labour are backing down somewhat on their PIP policy. Those who have it now will not lose it, but new claimants will not get it.
The same situation will affect people who end up being re-assessed (which covers a lot of people whose condition is lifelong but is deemed insufficiently 'serious' to meet the bar for being assessed once only).
Comments
The experience in Lincolnshire, in Boston and Spalding and the like, suggests it's a bit more complex than that. Now, a lot of these places have also been C/conservative for decades, so when significant numbers of Eastern European migrants showed up they were primed to object, even though those same migrants breathed live into communities that had been struggling. Add in austerity so that the influx of newcomers coincided with the deterioration in public services and you have a toxic brew.
https://x.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1935965853029106104
Around 50 seconds in "Lots of my constituents worry about coming off PIP and into work ..", except it's not related to employment, and plenty of people are only able to work because they are in receipt of PIP.
At this point yes, a number of them (including that minister in particular) have prior form.
Aye, but there's none so blind as them that will not see. The likes of Reeves in particular have it as an article of dogma that a significant number of people on working-age benefits are skivers.
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury.
It what way has anyone tried to ban an act from performing at Glastonbury?
Now, of course, the Prime Minister expressing an opinion is very different to anyone else doing so. However, in no way does "I think someone charged with a terrorist offence shouldn't be performing at a major festival" equate with a government banning a musician.
AFZ
As does trying to ban a band from Glastonbury. I've definitely not got time for all of Kneecap's views but it's extremely clear
Charged, not convicted, of a crime Ó hAnnaidh denies committing (although also, waving a flag shouldn't be a crime much less be considered an act of terrorism).
'Asked by the Sun, external if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, Keir Starmer said: "No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this."' - to me, "we need to come down really clearly on this" suggests taking some concrete action rather than merely expressing disapproval. Given the speed at which the government has rushed to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation makes it very clear that the government is happy to crush protest groups with anti-terror legislation.
Waving a flag isn't an act of terrorism. Spraying a plane with paint isn't an act of terrorism. Even if Kneecap supported Hezbollah (and they say that they don't), merely supporting them wouldn't be an act of terrorism. I should stress that Hezbollah are awful and reasonably seen as a terrorist group themselves, but merely expressing agreement with them isn't an act of terrorism.
Your interpretation of the Prime Minister's words do not equate to concrete action.
Waving a Hezbollah flag is not an act of terrorism. Of course it isn't. But clearly expressing support for a proscribed organisation is an offence - hence an ongoing court case for an individual accused of doing so.
It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the Prime Minister here and the law in question. But to suggest that the PM saying he thinks it inappropriate for someone who is facing such a charge to perform at such an event is the most draconian thing ever is not reasonable.
AFZ
I suspect in context it's an attempt to give a fairly clear signal to the BBC (who will be broadcasting selections of the event).
Yeah, quite, so far - as far as we can tell - New Labour's counter-terrorism legislation has been used in fairly carefully targetted ways. Braveman moved in the direction of criminalising protest but everything she did was through public order legislation. If the Home Secretary is suddenly willing to use counter-terrorism legislation, we are in new territory.
More generally; a question to those on the centre-left who believed Labour could be pushed left in government, where are the liberal tendencies of the Starmer government and Starmer as an individual?
Starmer is -54 for his personal rating in the polls. This posturing to The Sun doesn't help and the sad thing is, he probably thinks it does.
Meanwhile he's backed Donald Trump's bombing- I'll take the popular beat combo with the dodgy flag over Keir Starmer wrapped in a flag anyday. He's the real danger.
Did anyone actually believe this? I thought it was just a stick used to beat those on the left into voting for the lesser† of two evils. Nobody actually thought you could get a Labour government to move to the left after *waves at every Labour government in history but especially the last one*.
†though frankly it's up for debate now whether this is the lesser of the two evils. They've done things worse than the tories did but it's hard to know if the tories would have done the same once the threat of the election had passed.
@Louise the thing that gets me is that surely Starmer isn't dense enough to think that potentially being dragged by the US into a war in the Middle East - yet again - will go down well with the public.
He thinks bleeding support to the left will be fine - they will all come home at the election but I think he is wrong about that - many people are completely disgusted with Labour under him.
Personally I think Labour have to get rid of him if they want to recover against Reform in the polls - his appeasement strategy is both morally wrong and in practical terms disastrous.
Really?
How else should I read what you wrote?
The statement on US bombing, I have huge issues with. I have recently resigned my party membership as I mentioned. I am far from a happy camper.
But the lack of objectivity and exaggeration here are just ridiculous.
I think parts of the soft-left believed in out of desperation, certain centrist commentators believed it because they are just dumb, and for the rest it was largely stick.
In any case it's worth constantly repeating, to ensure what they did last time isn't forgotten.
I don't know if anyone should be objective about a situation where anti-terror legislation is being weaponised against people who are very clearly not terrorists.
I agreed with @chrisstiles saying that Labour's behaviour "goes significantly beyond even the draconian end of the Braverman spell as Home Secretary". Neither he nor I stated that anything was "the most draconian ever". I don't see how that isn't an exaggeration, but alarm at the reaction to a band playing at Glastonbury is. I'm very happy to be proven wrong but I don't recall Braverman making insinuations about who could and couldn't play at Glastonbury.
I accept that the reality may be closer to what you think than to what I think, but I do sincerely see Starmer's statement about Kneecap as a sign of potential restrictions on their performance from the government. Maybe this is just an ND misunderstanding on my part (and apologies if it is) but to me "exaggeration" suggests not sincerely believing that something is true, which I do wrt Starmer and Kneecap.
The issue that leaves me scratching my head is why he thinks Reform voters would be pro-war in a situation that potentially involves British troops. I think both Farage and Starmer might get a nasty shock with how unpopular joining an American war would be. UKIP voters and UKIP sympathisers during the second Gulf War were always demanding "bring our boys home" (and I can't fault them for that of course).
And like you I don't think it'll be actually popular with ordinary voters. I don't think it'll poll well in America either.
Overt religiosity of any kind in politicians also goes down really really badly with the UK public in general - also I think the UK right (even online) are much less inclined to be pro-Israel and much more open with their antisemitism.
Terrorist organizations, as a rule, don't exist because a group of bored people like a spot of light terrorism of an afternoon. They tend to exist as a response to some perceived injustice, and one can certainly discuss the rights and wrongs of the feelings of injustice separately from the terrorism.
In this case, Mr. Ó hAnnaidh displayed the Hezbollah flag on stage at a gig. To any reasonable eye, that's a statement of support for Hezbollah, rather than a statement of opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza.
Lots of things support terrorism without actually being terrorism themselves. Raising money (by whatever method) for a terrorist organization isn't terrorism of itself, but clearly aids and enables terrorism, and deserves the same punishment. Where you draw the line between expressing an opinion and giving aid and comfort to a terrorist organization might be an interesting question, but I'd argue that waving the flag of that organization looks like unequivocal support, and would tend to find it on the wrong side of that line.
That's a reasonable position. But it is a crime.
Labour MPs mount major bid to block benefits changes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d6947ej5ro
Good.
I just wish I knew what this government stood for. What is its vision for Britain?
Them being in charge. That's it. That's as far as it goes.
Well, that's politicians for you, isn't it?
Well no, actually, not all politicians. Say what you like about Michael Gove, for example, but he had views on how he thought education should work and pursued them. Even Blair, with all his well coiffed vacuity, had a plan even if it was just "let capitalism run riot and hope we can cream off enough of the profits to fund public services".
The problem there is that with the current government it only seems like a matter of time before thinking that's a reasonable position also becomes a crime.
Indeed. Civil service friends of mine across various govt departments actually liked working for Gove (at justice, education and I think communities) because unlike some secretaries of state he was clear in what he was trying to do (and apparently decent to work for).
People might not have liked what he was trying to do, but it was nevertheless usually clear, coherent, and (to an extent) reasonably logical on its own terms.
That he might have nevertheless been wrong is a different argument…
A very early voting intention poll puts Reform as just and only just winners. They would not have enough to form a government on their own, even with help from another small party it would be practically impossible. Labour need to change now. A lot of blame is put at not just Starmer’s door but also his main advisers. Starmer is still not liked by the voters.
The same situation will affect people who end up being re-assessed (which covers a lot of people whose condition is lifelong but is deemed insufficiently 'serious' to meet the bar for being assessed once only).
Some will not get it, they are not abolishing the benefit, they are changing the thresholds. Source.
It isn't helped when senior MPs continue to misrepresent the changes:
https://bsky.app/profile/saulstaniforth.bsky.social/post/3lsl2ldtbic27