Thread 6 Starmer: We're going to need a bigger skip!

[InMySpareTime]

Previous thread

Thread 5 Starmer: keeping on keeping on http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/5136094-thread-5-starmer-keeping-on-keeping-on

I find it quite astonishing that those who supported Tory much - "they're doing great. They're so good with money etc"

But now it's turns out they were worse than most of us could see, they left us in more debt than was known - that's all of a sudden labours fault.

And they say Labour supporters (which also I've noticed seems to be an insult for anyone that chose not to vote Tory) have their head in the sand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2npgpz048o

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/29/home-office-criticised-over-woefully-understated-tory-asylum-budgets

links from that thread

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said it had ended up spending £7.9bn over the period, £7.6bn more than forecast.

I think that the last year or so, when they realised they were losing ground, the Tories threw everything at it with no fiscal responsibility. And that is now proven.

Certainly we couldnt afford the recent NI cuts . And to think Hunt & Sunak dangled more tax cuts and getting rid of IHT earlier this year. Ridiculous.

From Duncin's article -

'the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) thinktank suggested the Home Office had repeatedly lowballed its budget estimates.

It found ministers knew budgets it had submitted were insufficient and habitually drew on Treasury contingency reserves, a practice that one Labour source described as “like the wild west”.
Labour said it was proof the previous government had “covered up” the extent of the crisis in the asylum system and that ministers “ran away from the problem”.'

The problem here is similar to other issues - HMT officials were precluded from sharingf spending pressures with Labour before the election. They were similarly precluded from discussing the lack of realism with the OBR. The only way those discussions could have been had would have been if Hunt had authorised it, which for obvious reasons he didnt.

Labour said it was proof the previous government had “covered up” the extent of the crisis in the asylum system

I don't see how Labour can say they didn't know;

28 February 2024

The Government is forking out £15 million a day on putting up asylum seekers in hotels, spending £4.3 billion more of taxpayer money than budgeted on asylum support in the last year, Labour has said.

The Opposition party pointed to Treasury figures that estimate the Home Office spent £5.4 billion on asylum accommodation and support.

The Home Office’s top civil servant said the extra money claimed in the Treasury “supplementary estimates” was “a result of record levels of small boat arrivals since the Spending Review 2021”.

Ms Cooper said:

“Despite promises of action from the Prime Minister, they have not delivered and now the Home Secretary has been forced to go to the Chancellor with a begging bowl because he’s bust his budget by over £5 billion...

Labour has set out a clear plan to save billions of pounds for the taxpayer ...”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/government-labour-yvette-cooper-home-secretary-hm-treasury-b1142201.html

As per IFS, Labour didn't know the full extent of the Conservaties overspending.

The IFS only 'suggested' they 'may not' have had the full picture - that's just a suggestion not a fact;

While the ballooning costs linked to asylum and immigration have been well documented, the IFS suggested Reeves may not have had the full picture before she entered government.

Your suggestion that Labour knew is also not a fact

Every year the Home Office would submit unrealistically low estimates for budgets for asylum, border, visa and passport operations.

Every year they'd need to dip into Reserves for "unforeseen costs".

This year the Reserves had already been spent.

I dont know how anyone can ready this report and think this is satisfactory.

ifs.org.uk/articles/home-office-budgeting-and-asylum-overspends

It's the eternal demand of the right that Labour always be held to higher standards than the Tories. No matter what the situation, it's always Labour's fault.

Yes.

Not even 14 weeks versus 14 years. But all Labour's fault

Fucks sake.

They’ve spent the entire reserves nearly 2.5 times haven’t they? I thought the total reserve was something like 9 billion and while the HO had spent nearly 7 billion of that on asylum costs alone, the entire amount already spent or set aside by the government was 22 billion.

It seem like everyone was just under budgeting and using the reserve as a slush fund.

Basically giving it away to their donors, like the chap who owns the Bibby Stockholm, and the hotel owners...

Not helped by the Illegal Immigration Act halting any processing of applicants and thus increasing other bills like accommodation.

Yeah, all Labour's fault...

I’d imagine there was a fair amount spent on legal fees when they tried to illegally deport people and ended up in court.

The amazing thing about that graph is that in the article, the reason given for the planned spending being negative for 23/24 and 24/25 is that income from applications etc was going to be more than expenditure. Because the obvious conclusion for anyone who’d looked at the spending trend for the three previous years is ‘this is the year we’re going to make money.’

It does sort of suggest that either nobody responsible for drawing up a budget was looking at the actual spend over previous years. Or they knew and were deliberately drawing up inaccurate departmental budgets.

It does seem like there was some fantasy budget writing...

"The Home Office has got into the bad habit of each year submitting Main Estimates to parliament that it knew would be insufficient, relying on a top-up from the Treasury Reserve later in the year. Despite repeated reprimandss_from the Home Affairs Committee, and the fact that this behaviour seemingly contravenes Treasury guidance, it has been the practice of the past few years. The plan was to repeat this again in 2024–25. When Rachel Reeves pointed to a £6.4 billion in-year spending pressure on the asylum system, she was in effect pre-recognising the top-up that the Home Office was banking on receiving later in the year. The problem is that this time around, with major spending pressures elsewhere, there does not seem to be enough left in the Reserve for such a top-up. "

And up pops another thread

And the Tories are whinging about the potential smoking ban. Anyone remembers when it was their idea

I believe they wanted to ban ALL smoking.

Never mind -

Britons tend to support the proposed smoking ban in pub gardens and outdoor restaurants

Strong support: 35%
Tend to support: 23%
Tend to oppose: 17%
Strong oppose: 18%

yougov.co.uk/topics/health/…

x.com/yougov/status/1829172165272580618?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

What's not to like

Same as the myth about Tories supporting law and order (most police cuts under their watch) and defence (going back to the post-Suez defence review, almost all cuts in the military have been under Tory governments).

I genuinely think it’s going to put even more pubs out of business. Although I stopped smoking more than a decade ago I really disapprove of demonising smokers. I bet obesity related conditions cost the NHS more than smoking related ones.

2 stones heavier since I stopped smoking. Sigh. Wouldn't start again though, the fewer smokers the better, surely?