The Budget

I'm surely not the only one who reads news media and can see a definite bias. Some news stories which should be thoroughly investigated (like the Nathan Gill story) get a quick mention and disappear and anything which potentially undermines the government is picked over for days and days regardless of the substance.

Yes Maybe.

The right wing media (which is basically all of it) indulged in their usual anti Labour scaremongering, pre budget. Their created narrative didn’t materialise, so now they’re jumping up and down like 2 year olds having a tantrum, shouting “she lied to us”, “she made us think that”.

Chat GPT take on it:

“There is a strong case that parts of the media may now look like they’ve been left with ‘egg on their face’ over how they covered Rachel Reeves and her 2025 budget. But it’s not uniform — it depends on which outlets, and which arguments, we mean. Here’s how I see it.

✅ Where media criticism has (so far) been undermined

•Warnings of dire economic collapse didn’t materialise — at least not immediately. Some media voices in the run-up to the Budget portrayed the situation as extremely bleak (“fiscal black hole”, “tax-hike inevitability” etc.). Then the official economic forecast from Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) showed the finances were not as dire as previously suggested — undermining the narrative many outlets had pushed. 

•The Budget avoided a headline income-tax hike many expected. Several outlets speculated and warned there would be big increases in income tax. In the end, the Chancellor did not raise income tax rates — though she froze thresholds and introduced other tax rises. That contrast between expectation and reality has led to criticism of over-hyped media forecasting. 

•Accusations the media were “doing the bidding” of political opponents. Some reports loudly echoed warnings from opposition parties about economic disaster. Given the post-Budget reaction (somewhat mixed but not uniformly disastrous), critics argue that some media outlets helped stoke fear rather than provide information.”

Well if it's my fantasy DAR I'm certainly not alone in my 'fantasy world'.

DaisyAnneReturns

Mollygo

So there have always been leaks before budgets. How is that relevant to whether it’s acceptable to be economical use of truth, either now or in the past?

But the most important thing, whether there have been leaks before or not is exactly where, other than in some people's febrile imagination, did she lie?

The information, from the OBR was given. They were then working on plan B, which might mean them breaking manifesto promises according to figures they had been given. The figures came from work that had not been done for the whole of the Conservative years. It's perfectly acceptable to think that there were some suprises.

They then got further information as it came due. This was better than expected by government abd the markets and allowed them to go back to plan A, and not break the manifesto promises.

I can understand people having different views on what was in the actual budget. But it seems to me that the suggestion of lies or obfuscation simply isn't true and this political brouhaha is just obfuscation designed to stop discussion of the actual budget.

I did hear someone say on one news programme ( might have been the Sky News review of the papers) that the accusations are based on interpretations of what she had said not her actual words?

Really accusing others of having a febrile imagination is incredibly rude, just because they don’t agree with your POV.
If I were you, I suppose I’d report that post, but fortunately, I’m not.

Mollygo

So there have always been leaks before budgets. How is that relevant to whether it’s acceptable to be economical use of truth, either now or in the past?

But the most important thing, whether there have been leaks before or not is exactly where, other than in some people's febrile imagination, did she lie?

The information, from the OBR was given. They were then working on plan B, which might mean them breaking manifesto promises according to figures they had been given. The figures came from work that had not been done for the whole of the Conservative years. It's perfectly acceptable to think that there were some suprises.

They then got further information as it came due. This was better than expected by government abd the markets and allowed them to go back to plan A, and not break the manifesto promises.

I can understand people having different views on what was in the actual budget. But it seems to me that the suggestion of lies or obfuscation simply isn't true and this political brouhaha is just obfuscation designed to stop discussion of the actual budget.

Smileless2012

I agree Allira, RR was economical with the truth imo in order to deceive or to put it another way; she lied.

Exactly how, other than in your fantasy, did she lie?

Your memory’s fine.
But others have done it
and there have been leaks before sound like excuses -even if you don’t mean it like that.

Mollygo

So there have always been leaks before budgets. How is that relevant to whether it’s acceptable to be economical use of truth, either now or in the past?

I haven’t said it’s acceptable ( sigh). I was just questioning my memory regarding such things.

The problem with Maizies stubborn adherence to MMT theories is that it only works within a state, where it is true they can’t go bankrupt because the state can issue money to cover any eventuality.

That theory breaks down because the UK economy is not closed we trade with many other states they all have a view on UK economy, in a great many cases trade in US dollars the reserve currency because they don’t trust sterlings value.

Our government tries to keep a stable value by restricting the money available, controlling inflation with varied success.

So there have always been leaks before budgets. How is that relevant to whether it’s acceptable to be economical use of truth, either now or in the past?

MayBee70

Happy to be corrected on this ( still, in general, avoiding the news). But haven’t there always been leaks ahead of budgets?Has every indirect tax increase been forensically dissected by the media? Were there calls for Kwarteng to step down? I thought he was sacked by Truss to save her own skin ( unsuccessfully). And didn’t the Conservatives always fiddle about with the economy so they could promise tax reductions at the next election?? If Labour are doing that at least they’re doing it so they can plough money back into public services, the ones that have been eroded over the last decade or so. And is part of the problem that people are only just daring to point out that Brexit has been a financial disaster for this country and the effects are still being felt. When I see farmers protesting on the streets I wonder why there was no huge protest about how they were shafted by Brexit ( even though, with their huge placards in fields they persuaded other people to vote for it ).Labour are, I believe, currently trying to sort of miners pensions that were eroded by previous governments, something else that money has to be found for. Although, sadly, I fear that those mining communities are now full on Reform supporters . (I’ll go back into hibernation now…)

There have Maybe.

Now that we know the OBR has been working with computers that havnt been maintained for years, how do we know what is the truth.
It has been stated that info has been leaking out for years.

A few months back my step daughter was working on a Home Office computer project. She had to point out several issues they have with security.

This is another butterfly affect of cutbacks ( looking at you Fancythat) Maintaining high spec computer systems is very expensive and time consuming.
You wonder how bad these systems are across the whole public service.

fancythat

I want the standards of MPs to be very high.
Not very low.

If the Uk population is not careful, we will slide into accepting corruption and the like. If not worse.
Assuming we are not already at that point.

With respect Fancythat you are naive where the game of politics is concerned.

And I still can’t accept that the lie on the bus can be an excuse for any economies with the truth by this government.

MayBee70

Mollygo

Allira

Ps as my mother used to say, MayBee - Two wrongs (or ten wrongs) don't make a right.

True Allira.
It is strange to hear that it’s OK to do something wrong, because someone did it before *unless of course the person saying it is endorsing the previous wrongdoing*

I didn’t say it was right. I just pointed out that the media didn’t have quite such a field day on every last incident. If some of the things the Conservatives did in government were as forensically disected by the media in the way that they are now the country might not be in such a mess eg the blatant lie on the side of the Brexit bus.

I think they did.
In fact, many can still be found by Googling.

MayBee70
I didn’t say it was right. I just pointed out that the media didn’t have quite such a field day on every last incident.

I agree about the media coverage, but that applies to every government we’ve ever had. Remember when our only source of information was a newspaper or the radio?
But would things forensically dissected by the media during Brexit make the current dissections any more right?

Mollygo

Allira

Ps as my mother used to say, MayBee - Two wrongs (or ten wrongs) don't make a right.

True Allira.
It is strange to hear that it’s OK to do something wrong, because someone did it before *unless of course the person saying it is endorsing the previous wrongdoing*

I didn’t say it was right. I just pointed out that the media didn’t have quite such a field day on every last incident. If some of the things the Conservatives did in government were as forensically disected by the media in the way that they are now the country might not be in such a mess eg the blatant lie on the side of the Brexit bus.

DaisyAnneReturns

Maizie I put your statement in and I think I asked what would be the "opposing view" of this but I'm not sure. It could have been "counter argument". I often ask for something along those lines when I ask for information I want. It gives a better balance.

What statement did you put in?

Surely, if you can’t remember what you asked it will still be there in the dalogue?

fancythat

Casdon

I doubt if in reality the moral compass of MPs is any different to what it has always been fancythat. However the advent of more aggressive investigating and reporting of misdemeanours, and the planting of stories, often on social media, that turn out to be untrue is rife now.

It may have been the way I was brought up.
To respect certain people, and groups of people. MPs being one of those groups.

I am glad about aggressive[is that the right word] investigating. And reporting.

What is astounding me again and agin on the forum is that those who appear to vote left wing, brush all sorts of things to the side, under the carpet, and accept any manner of things.
I cant say that I have noticed that to anywhere near the extent from those who vote right wing.
I might be wrong.

An eye opener really.

Yes, respect from the public has definitely lessened, and social media is responsible for much of that.
People see things from their own perspective fancythat, and your left wing brushing all sorts of things to the side is somebody else’s right wing brushing all sorts of things to the side, I will guarantee. It’s a waste of energy being astounded by what people say - I used to be, but now I generally just think so and so is on one again.

Allira

Ps as my mother used to say, MayBee - Two wrongs (or ten wrongs) don't make a right.

True Allira.
It is strange to hear that it’s OK to do something wrong, because someone did it before unless of course the person saying it is endorsing the previous wrongdoing

Richard Hughes, Head of OBR, has resigned, taking full responsibility for the leak.
A man of honour, clearly a throwback.
Reeves wont go, or Starmer, or Morgan McSweeney, or the Head of the BBC. Rayner has gone, but she will be back.
Someone has just said how this government treats the proletariat with utter contempt, Starmer in particular. None of them, Rayner in particular, feel any shame for their actions.

Ps as my mother used to say, MayBee - Two wrongs (or ten wrongs) don't make a right.

(I’ll go back into hibernation now…)
Before someone accuses you of deflection 😀

Happy to be corrected on this ( still, in general, avoiding the news). But haven’t there always been leaks ahead of budgets?Has every indirect tax increase been forensically dissected by the media? Were there calls for Kwarteng to step down? I thought he was sacked by Truss to save her own skin ( unsuccessfully). And didn’t the Conservatives always fiddle about with the economy so they could promise tax reductions at the next election?? If Labour are doing that at least they’re doing it so they can plough money back into public services, the ones that have been eroded over the last decade or so. And is part of the problem that people are only just daring to point out that Brexit has been a financial disaster for this country and the effects are still being felt. When I see farmers protesting on the streets I wonder why there was no huge protest about how they were shafted by Brexit ( even though, with their huge placards in fields they persuaded other people to vote for it ).Labour are, I believe, currently trying to sort of miners pensions that were eroded by previous governments, something else that money has to be found for. Although, sadly, I fear that those mining communities are now full on Reform supporters . (I’ll go back into hibernation now…)