🚨 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

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months 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 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months 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.