It was even surely quite simple to sell as simply reversing an unaffordable election gimmick? And yet apparently Labour are so terrified of a bad headline that they'd rather just back themselves into a corner from which they can do sod all. Wonderful.
www.bbc.co.uk
Oh what a shame. You mean we've lost an opportunity to have up to a billion quids worth of our key infrastructure owned by a business who have shown themselves to be pretty evil and entirely uninterested in the UK companies they invest in? Naughty naughty Louise.Looks like the first mis-step for Transport SoS Louise Haigh, being ticked off by Starmer for remarks she has made about P&O and DP World.
DP World is a major UK and global port operator, and it also owns P&O Ferries who indulged in fire-and-rehire at Dover recently.
Haigh called them "cowboys" and said she would boycott P&O.
Now it seems DP World in response are refusing to invest in London Gateway port, to the considerable annoyance of Labour HQ.
Keir Starmer rebukes Louise Haigh over P&O Ferries ‘boycott’ call
The PM tells the BBC the transport minister's criticism of a ferry company is not the government's view, ahead of an investment summit.
Until now, Louise Haigh seemed to be doing well in office and avoiding the chaos in some other parts of the government machine.
I have to be honest and say that Labour look an absolute shambles who are totally inexperienced and give the impression they really have no idea what they're doing.
Agreed. And some of the things they are getting wrong suggest a lack of basic "nous" (the gifts) and that they have not been getting good technical advice or have ignored it until the problems become too obvious (pensions tax). You don't need experience of governing for either of those
The pensions taxes are a fine example of something which Labour never said they would do, and now probably won't. It seems a bit weird to to suggest it's a failing of government to not say they will do something bad, and then not do it, just because in the middle there was some press speculation.
Agreed on the delay.
Pensions are difficult, aren't they?
Current government should have been well aware of state of economy (some analysts dispute it's anywhere near as bad as made out but don't have any quotes so can treat that as here say) as they were keen on all covid restrictions (and actually wanted more than were implemented, remember) that contributed to a number of current issues.
The problem seems to be that there were Tory spending commitments in the current year not budgeted for, which were not evident to Labour until they got access to the figures on taking over. I can't see how supporting or not supporting something that began four years ago and ended two years ago has any bearing at all on what Labour could have known about this.
The COVID spend is why it’s tricky for the Government to borrow too much more. And “we didn’t know how bad it was” is at best a half truth…
But the specific issue is the unfunded commitments in the current year. The OBR has confirmed this was the case, so although Labour may have suspected it they could not have known for certain - and it wasn't in their interests to speculate before the election.
Explain how labour would have handled the pandemic better with Starmer being critical of lifting restrictions. His ideas would have worsened the financial position.
Labour had access to the civil service from January. They were fully aware of what had been committed to.
Quite a lot of the commitments came after January. Frankly I thing the civil service were in a bit of a spin with some of the Network North fictional funding, and it's not at all unlikely that the Tories left office without ever themselves being clear on just what they'd done. The recommendations of the pay review bodies additionally came very late, but with a commitment to pay them largely baked in.
Indeed they knew full well the score as did the OBR who just kept their head down as at times it looked like they would be abolished and given the poor forecasting record they should be but thats going off topic. Labour are all over the place at the moment but then they are inexperienced so are find their feet. However, this low point gives them an opportunity to pull the rabbit out of the bag with the budget and deliver that sense of renewal that people voted for. Nothing will change overnight of course but if they can lay the foundations to get this country back on track electorate will give them the time.
As I've already said it's completely irrelevant to whether they knew or not whether there was a "hole" in the budget in 2024.
The OBR backed Labour's statement about not being aware of the budget hole. They would have been aware of what had been committed to, as that was public information, but not to the fact funds hadn't been allocated to it.
They would have known they are plugged into the Treasury but remember they got a lot of push back under Truss and Hunt held them at arms length so they didn't want to rock the boat. Labour coming to power has revitalised them along with a load more pointless quangos stuffed full of overpaid yes-men but suits Labour narrative to surround themselves with organisations they can blame.
The OBR does the forecasts, and the most up to date information it had was what went into the forecast for the 2024 budget, which was before the 2024/25 financial year had started.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree the public sector pay rises were a political decision by the incoming government, and a correct one in my view considering how far most of them had fallen behind. It was a little disingenuous for Labour to include those as part of the "black hole".
The problem is that the pay awards essentially just went with the recommendations of the independent review bodies, and the Tories had pretty much committed to do that anyway.
Is that the one that sometimes gets called a 'garden tax' because it takes into account all of the land on which a house sits, rather than just the building?
Much of local authorities' income come from central government grants, so these could be re-adjusted to re-distribute funds if the government so desired.
I suspect the reasons tend not to be explicitly political in most cases, and more to do with a familiarity with the issues in different areas. Many MPs have in the past been councillors themselves of course. The Tories tend to focus on the high rural cost of providing roads, and the cost of providing public transport. Labour focus on the higher urban costs of education and social care.