Black Hole In UK’s Public Finances Equivalent To Tory’s Pre-Election Tax Cuts

[Borg Refinery]

Ahem from that very same Independent: 

Fact check: Labour's pledge to cap energy bills expired in April 2023


Maybe you should read what Starmer actually said in May this year https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/energy-bills-labour-starmer-general-election-b2550795.html

'Appearing on Good Morning Britain on Friday 24 May, Sir Keir was asked "how much cheaper will our bills be under a Labour government?"


"We want to set up Great British Energy - that's a publically owned company, making money for the taxpayer," he responded.

"That ought to bring down household bills by about £400 - and that's a permanent drop."


Only an idiot or malevolent SNP would project that as a £400 cut now promise

Well at least energy bills are rising, that's the main thing, but we're all neanderthals or whatever else you decided to come up with today for disagreeing with you.

Superiority shines through don't it? Sadly you aren't the only one who uses petty insults in place of debate here, when you've lost the debate, the only thing left is slander

[Unlucky4Sum]

They all lie just to gain power.



Energy prices up 10% in October, whilst winter fuel payment is scrapped.

https://news.sky.com/story/energy-price-cap-to-rise-in-october-amid-backlash-over-loss-of-some-winter-fuel-payments-13201032

It's easy if you put your glasses on, really plain to see.

Ahem from that very same Independent:  

Fact check: Labour's pledge to cap energy bills expired in April 2023


Maybe you should read what Starmer actually said in May this year https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/energy-bills-labour-starmer-general-election-b2550795.html 

'Appearing on Good Morning Britain on Friday 24 May, Sir Keir was asked "how much cheaper will our bills be under a Labour government?"


"We want to set up Great British Energy - that's a publically owned company, making money for the taxpayer," he responded.

"That ought to bring down household bills by about £400 - and that's a permanent drop."


Only an idiot or malevolent SNP would project that as a £400 cut now promise

[Barry]

They all lie just to gain power.



Energy prices up 10% in October, whilst winter fuel payment is scrapped.

https://news.sky.com/story/energy-price-cap-to-rise-in-october-amid-backlash-over-loss-of-some-winter-fuel-payments-13201032

It's easy if you put your glasses on, really plain to see.

[patman post]

It seems clear that everyone agrees there is a multi-billion black hole in the UK's finances — isn't how that's dealt with the important issue, rather than who said what and when?

Personally, I was surprised that anyone promised to rule out any tax increases, given the dire state of the UK economy following the damage to the UK economy caused by Brexit, the huge (but necessary) hand outs and expenditure associated with the pandemic, and the surge in energy and other prices.

The UK is in for an austere few years...

[Unlucky4Sum]

Nope, she claimed there was a £20 billion black hole that they only found after the election. As Hunt said, she had meetings with the appropriate offices 10 weeks before the GE, she knew what the situation was. And as Hunt also pointed out, every financial institute, including civil servants have called her out and said she is talking rubbish.

She would have suspected what the situation was but Hunt was publicly denying it so that had to be the basis on which the election was fought.

There are limits to what officials can brief before the election.  They always prepare a detail brief that is given to a new government AFTER the change of power.

[Borg Refinery]

It looks less clear cut than I thought and like they're both playing trickery with words and numbers, as is always the case with politicians

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/30/rachel-reeves-claims-jeremy-hunt-lied-nonsense-what-is-the-truth

An audit conducted by the Treasury since Reeves's arrival has identified £35bn of potential overspending by Whitehall departments in the 2024-25 financial year. The government does not expect to have to find all of the money and can use its reserves – a rainy day fund – to cover some of the costs. Even so, that would leave projected departmental spending £21.9bn above the totals set by the Treasury in Hunt's March 2024 budget. Reeves has reduced that figure to £16.4bn by announcing £5.5bn of spending cuts, including the means testing of the winter fuel payments for pensioners.

What does Reeves say?
The chancellor said during the election campaign that she would inherit the biggest mess since the second world war but even so says she has been shocked at the state of the nation's books. Reeves says the previous government made spending commitments but failed to allocate the money to fund them. She says Hunt covered up what was really happening: "He did that knowingly and deliberately. He lied, and they lied during the election campaign about the state of the public finances."

What does Hunt say?
Hunt says Reeves has confected a story about a £21.9bn "black hole" as a smokescreen for tax increases in the budget that she was always going to impose. As shadow chancellor, Reeves had privileged access to civil servants before the election, Hunt says, so she was up to speed with the state of the public finances. These were not in nearly as bad a state as Reeves claims, with £9.4bn of the additional spending pressure the result of a decision the chancellor herself has taken: to meet the recommendations of the public sector pay review bodies in full.

So who's right?
As tends to be the case, things are not entirely clearcut. Reeves cannot claim complete ignorance about the spending pressures and said herself during the campaign that the existence of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility meant it was not necessary to win an election to find out about the state of public finances. But the chancellor's argument that things were even worse than she expected was bolstered when the OBR's director, Richard Hughes, said on Monday that he was launching an inquiry into how the departmental spending totals for 2024-25 were prepared. The OBR became aware of the additional spending pressures only last week. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says the numbers Reeves produced were new in that they had not been published before and that he found it astonishing that the £6bn bill for housing asylum seekers had not been budgeted for. Even so, it was always obvious Reeves faced tricky decisions, Johnson says.

Isn't this just a blame game?

To a large extent, yes. Both Hunt and Reeves want to control the narrative, knowing that the impression left with voters now is likely to stick. Hunt's message is that the economy and the public finances were on the mend under his stewardship, that extra money for the NHS was linked to productivity gains, and that his £10bn budget cut in national insurance was affordable. Reeves says unfunded promises were made of which the OBR was unaware and that already tough choices will now be even tougher as a result.

[Nick]

All of which is an evasion of the point: Jeremy Hunt himself misled people on the figures given, that was her point. Saying "you could go and find it out" or "it's public knowledge" doesn't change the fact of what he himself said.

I'd like to know what part of that was wrong? Because that's what Reeves alleged

Nope, she claimed there was a £20 billion black hole that they only found after the election. As Hunt said, she had meetings with the appropriate offices 10 weeks before the GE, she knew what the situation was. And as Hunt also pointed out, every financial institute, including civil servants have called her out and said she is talking rubbish. 

[Borg Refinery]

As I said, Reeves lied through her teeth.

https://youtu.be/oognbNMKs2U

All of which is an evasion of the point: Jeremy Hunt himself misled people on the figures given, that was her point. Saying "you could go and find it out" or "it's public knowledge" doesn't change the fact of what he himself said.

I'd like to know what part of that was wrong? Because that's what Reeves alleged

[Nick]

As I said, Reeves lied through her teeth.

https://youtu.be/oognbNMKs2U

[Streetwalker]

Well I don't know what and what wasn't known at the handover of government but I do know that Labour were told a million times (slight exaggeration) in the election debates that their numbers didn't add up and would require tax rises to pay for their policies . Labour insisted they had it covered 

They didn't , they lied . 

[Borg Refinery]

Reeves is a liar, Labour knew the full financial picture before the election, they had been told.

Yes, she is a liar, she, Starmer and much of Labour have demonstrated that over and over - the amount of times I've corrected obvious lies repeated by Labour supporters originating from Reeves et al is tiring for me to even remember. However, IIRC, correct me if wrong - Hunt simply said he felt insulted by being called a liar and additionally suggests that the spending priorities Lab are focused on are even worse..?

Link

Jeremy Hunt has responded to Rachel Reeves' accusation that he is a "liar" over almost £22bn of unfunded commitments that she said were "covered up from the country". The chancellor has announced that 10 million pensioners will lose out on winter fuel payments in an attempt to fill the black hole, while public sector staff will receive a pay rise. Ms Reeves' Tory predecessor told Sky News on Tuesday (30 July) that her comments were "disappointing." "It discredits politics when people call each other liars. I thought more highly of Rachel Reeves," Mr Hunt added as he described feeling insulted.

And in this clip, he doesn't appear to dispute the fact he didn't make the knowledge public to parliament:

https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1818175329476673555?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1818175329476673555%7Ctwgr%5E79be1162f78a378c3f2b5eff7c0863a55321f8d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelondoneconomic.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblack-hole-in-uks-public-finances-equivalent-to-torys-pre-election-tax-cuts-379965%2F

Thus, instead, he seems to insist that they would have had flights taking off to Rwanda so hotel asylum costs would be lower. I'm not disputing his point about the 22% pay rise for JR docs (I haven't looked into it so I can't dispute it one way or the other), but it looks to me as if she may have a point about Hunt giving misleading figures?

We can all speculate and say Labour should have known by piecing together the costs and working it out for themselves, although their maths skills are debatable at the best of times to say the least - but I'm not sure Hunt has been as forthright as he should have been?

[papasmurf]

If you can't be bothered to keep up with current affairs that's your problem.

If you did it would make a change:-

IFS response to Rachel Reeves' spending audit | Institute for Fiscal Studies

[Nick]

Nick no they hadn't. The Tory government had hidden it.

If you can't be bothered to keep up with current affairs that's your problem.
The fact you don't know she is lying is concerning. 

[papasmurf]

Reeves is a liar, Labour knew the full financial picture before the election, they had been told.

Nick no they hadn't. The Tory government had hidden it.

[Nick]

Link

Reeves is a liar, Labour knew the full financial picture before the election, they had been told.