this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
26 points (96.4% liked)

UK Politics

3046 readers
111 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

🚨 NEW: The IFS has backed Rachel Reeves's claim that Labour inherited a worse financial situation than expected, criticising the Home Office for 'woeful' budget figures under the Tories that underestimated asylum costs

The budget for 3 years was £320m, but spending hit £7.9bn

all 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 9 points 1 month ago

Still no wealth tax though, no?

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 8 points 1 month ago

criticising the Home Office for 'woeful' budget figures under the Tories that underestimated asylum costs

I've said it once I'll say it again. The HomeOffice is utterly incompetent. Don't expect this to change under Labour. It's an institutional problem that needs root and branch reform.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That's ... even worse than the headline! Not only did the budget not include the £4000m yearly cost, it actually said that it expected -£230m (making money not spending money)

[–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

IFS or IMF? Because the rhetoric is the same. They claimed a few years ago that UK will be "paying for" COVID for decades, no not because of long COVID but because increased spending during the period prevented complete collapse.