Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

It's not standard in Europe, given data protection laws. Especially given the risk that their social media is likely to include special category information such as information on their sexuality or sex life, possibly health, political opinions etc. The fact that they have made information publicly available doesn't stop it being their personal data or considered particularly worthy of protection.

There may be reasons to do it but you'd need to document those very carefully - in practice it would normally have to be pretty directly related to a risk in that job. Same goes for criminal background checks.

How odd.  Are you telling me that someone can make an odious public comment - or as is usually the case - a whole history of odious public comments for the whole world to see and hear, and it is "private". 

[Sheilbh]

How odd.  Are you telling me that someone can make an odious public comment - or as is usually the case - a whole history of odious public comments for the whole world to see and hear, and it is "private". 

It's not private, but it is their personal data.

Which means you need a lawful basis to use it. If they've "manifestly" made it public (and European courts tend to interpret that quite narrowly if it's a case of an employer v an employee) then you meet the narrower "special category" lawful bases, but you still need a normal one. Practically you'd be arguing that it is in your legitimate interests as a controller - but you'd need to balance that against the "rights and freedoms" of the individual. If the impact on the individual is they don't get an offer of employment that is very severe so you'd need a very strong legitimate interest.

In other areas of equalities law, philosophical beliefs are protected against discrimination and there's a whole strand of case law on that - needs to be coherent etc. But it also basically applies as long as the belief is "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - and that's a very high bar in European law. It's broadly someone pursuing totalitarianism, advocating extreme violence or hatred, Nazism etc. My instinct would be you probably need to hit that threshold in order to demonstrate legitimate interests that outweigh the impact on the individual.

And obviously the risk is if you're doing it and you don't find it - then all of this would be discoverable for free as part of a "data subject access request" which, particularly in employment, is the first step in grievance processes in employment law because it basically gives claimants free and pre-claim disclosure.

Not impossible - but challenging.

My experience from advising North American clients in the UK but also the rest of Europe is the level of vetting and background checks that is standard there is very rare here and basically only for very specific high risk jobs.

In this it is possibly worth noting that the foundation of European law in this area is West Germany in the 1970s - which both through its history and the experience of East Germany had a profound sense of the risk to individuals from losing a sort of informational autonomy (I think the case that kicked it off was a census office in West Germany sharing information with the police).

Edit: I would add that as an Anglo - while I actually strongly sympathise with the European idea here and the view that you have a separate life which it is very difficult for your employers or prospective employers to investigate, I do find it an interesting interpretation that the same courts setting a high bar on these sort of issues have also found it perfectly legitimate to discriminate against people wearing any indication of religious belief (in theory turbans or a cross - in practice hijabs) if it's a public facing role.

Edit: I'd also add that the key factor is probably the type of role - so police officer or working in the intelligence services will have a far higher level of vetting that would be acceptable in all the circumstances than, say, someone working in retail or for a commercial law firm. Also having now worked in a heavily unionised sector, my experience of the unions is that they have very, very robust views on anything that comes across as "monitoring" in the workplace but also particularly outside it.

[Josquius]

How many of these closet racists or homophobes exist? How many set that aside when say in a management position and deciding who gets opportunities, who gets promoted?

Well that is a problem. But we can't be going through people's social media to make sure they are unbiased. Our government is doing this kind of thing to people trying to enter the US now and it isn't to make sure those people aren't racist or homophobic.

Besides plenty of shit could be misinterpreted out of context.

That's where I would say it needs to be a pattern of behaviour.

You once shared a meme which includes a dog whistle you might not even have been aware of? Really not good to be punished for this.

You spend every night on social media spraying homophobic hate, bullying individuals, socialising with some people on terrorist watch lists, and generally being an absolute pos.... Yeah.... That's different.

[crazy canuck]

Edit: I'd also add that the key factor is probably the type of role - so police officer or working in the intelligence services will have a far higher level of vetting that would be acceptable in all the circumstances than, say, someone working in retail or for a commercial law firm. Also having now worked in a heavily unionised sector, my experience of the unions is that they have very, very robust views on anything that comes across as "monitoring" in the workplace but also particularly outside it.

Yes, it would be the same here.  Not legally but practically.  Nobody is going to expend the resources to do a full job of vetting someone if the position doesn't require it.

[Sheilbh]

By the by looks like a fairly significant rebellion against the government's disability benefit cuts - and the rebels are right (acknowledging there are problems in the system). I mentioned my local MP resigned from the front bench to rebel against the government, now Sir Sadiq Khan (think he got his knighthood last month?) has come out against it, as have 13 of the Labour chairs of Select Committees, which is about two thirds of the Labour chairs.

Reportedly the whips were telling people that this would be a vote of no confidence in the leader and the number of rebels....increased? (I'd just add that I think that's nonsense from the whips - confidence votes are in the government. And Labour's leadership rules don't have no confidence votes):

Widespread Labour dissent over welfare bill is sign things are going very badly for Starmer
Pippa Crerar
Political editor

Prime minister deployed ministers to contain rebellion after more than 100 Labour MPs signed amendment to bill
Tue 24 Jun 2025 22.11 BST

When a prime minister is forced to deploy his cabinet to try to contain a rebellion, it is not a sign that things are going well. For one with a working majority of 165 MPs, it suggests that things are, in fact, going very badly.

This was the scenario Keir Starmer faced on Tuesday after more than 100 Labour MPs signed an amendment to his welfare bill which could blow up his attempts to reform the disability benefits system.

Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, spent the day in one-to-one meetings with MPs who are deeply concerned about the impact of the cuts on the most vulnerable people. Ministers including Angela Rayner, Jonathan Reynolds and Wes Streeting hit the phones.

Whips and government aides were also deployed, with rebel MPs told their colleagues were removing their names from the amendment, and unsanctioned briefings that the vote should be treated as a confidence issue.

There were even claims – denied by No 10 – of aides issuing veiled threats to MPs about deselections and warning that a defeat could bring the government down. Yet the attempts did not appear to be moving the dial.

A leading Labour rebel suggested that the number of MPs who had signed the amendment on Monday night – 108 – had now risen to 127, though that number cannot be confirmed until after the House of Commons rises late on Tuesday night.

"The numbers have definitely been moving, but not necessarily in the right way," admitted one government insider.

Yet there are also those inside government who are frustrated at No 10's handling of welfare reform. First, for failing to understand until it was too late that they needed to get Labour MPs onside. The view inside No 10 had been that they should focus on the public.

"Of course it is ultimately public opinion that matters, but you've got to get to that point first, and you need the parliamentary party to do that," said one critic. "They thought they could make MPs blink first, but it doesn't look like they're going to."

Second, for focusing too much on the financial case for reforming the welfare system – that the ballooning bill was unsustainable – rather than on the moral one, which would have been that the current system was letting down millions of people who could be supported into work.

At the time of the spring statement, ministers said there were two justifications for the move: to get people off benefits in the long term, and that £5bn cuts to health and disability benefit were needed to make sure the system remained financially sustainable.

"They didn't make the moral case properly because they were so focused on the money. Of course that's important but it was the wrong way round," said one source. Senior Downing Street figures have since privately conceded that the approach was wrong.

Third, the government announced the benefit cuts at the same time as setting out how unemployed people would be helped back into work, with £1bn of additional support available, rather than first making sure that help was in place before cutting their incomes.

Kendall, MPs say, was one of the few Labour figures who understood the back-to-work reforms should be a priority, and had argued for as much of the savings from cuts as possible to be ploughed back into the system.

Having spent weeks speaking to angry and worried backbenchers, she offered them an olive branch this month, with added protections for the most vulnerable benefits recipients. But it was too little, too late.

The scale of the rebellion appears to have taken No 10 by surprise, not least because much of the planning took place below the radar, and through separate groups of MPs coming together. Even some of the rebels were shocked at the numbers.

But although Downing Street promised it was in "listening mode", there are few indications, for now, that it plans to change its mind before the vote on Tuesday 1 July.

A stern-looking Starmer told reporters at the Nato summit in The Hague that the welfare system was broken "and that's why we will press ahead with our reforms". Downing Street rejected suggestions the welfare bill was "dead on arrival".

Government insiders say dropping the bill would be impossible anyway, not least because it would leave the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, with a £5bn hole to fill.

So they will spend the days ahead making their case for reform, while reminding MPs that governing involves tough choices, and hoping that when push comes to shove, they will balk at voting against the government.

Yet there are still those who believe that, if the number of rebels does not start to fall, Starmer may have to delay the vote, with all the political humiliation that would entail. One minister observed: "I don't think the final chapter of this particular story has yet been written."

I'd add that I think the other aspect with this rebellion is the winter fuel allowance cut. Labour pushed ahead with it to show they were making "tough decisions" - I also think the leadership, once they'd realised there was opposition, plowed on to blood in new MPs and discipline them a bit. It then became a running sore for the entire year until the government had to cave in and substantially unwind it.

This is also another issue where Reeves' mad approach to "fiscal rules" and commitments on tax have been a rod for their own back. And because they're so tight everything basically depends on OBR projections five years into the future of how much "headroom" she has - while it's worth noting the difference between the OBR's projections in October 2024 and March 2025 was £10 billion, or double the size of these cuts. It's basically austerity plus economic astrology

Edit: Incidentally I hadn't seen this but Governor of the BoFE and the IMF also concerned around the way Labour have decided to do "fiscal rules" (separately the slow-moving crisis in official statistics is concerning):

Bank governor wades into row over Reeves' focus on fiscal rule forecasts
Andrew Bailey says OBR projections – which the chancellor uses to calculate headroom – shouldn't be 'over-interpreted'
Heather Stewart Economics editor
Tue 24 Jun 2025 18.53 BST

The Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, has waded into the controversy over Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules with a warning against "over-interpreting" the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts.

The chancellor announced spending cuts in her spring statement in March to rebuild headroom of £9.9bn against her fiscal rules based on projections from the OBR.

These include the welfare cuts that have sparked a major backbench rebellion ahead of a House of Commons vote next week.

Bailey said there were risks in being "constantly focused on a £9bn number" instead of looking at broader issues around the sustainability of the public finances.

"I think it's just important to emphasise that this figure of £9bn is a five-year-ahead forecast," he told members of the House of Lords economic affairs committee on Tuesday. "If we know one thing about forecasts – it won't be £9bn."

He added: "There is a danger in over-interpreting a five-year-ahead forecast."

Bailey said it was not for the Bank to make suggestions as to how to change the fiscal framework, but raised concerns about the current situation, in which investors are constantly assessing Reeves's next move on the basis of minor changes in the economic outlook.

"I just caution because having the financial markets marking fiscal policy to market on a daily basis is not a good state of affairs," he said. "I don't think I'm probably at odds with anybody around government in saying that."

Bailey stressed the need for a public debate around the longer-term challenges to fiscal policy, including the ageing population, the end of the post-second world war peace dividend and the need to spend more on adapting to the climate emergency.

Bailey's warning echoed concerns expressed by the International Monetary Fund in its annual report on the UK economy last month.

In a generally positive assessment of the UK, the IMF said that "small revisions to the economic outlook can erode the headroom within the rules, which is the subject of intense market and media scrutiny". It made a series of suggestions, including requiring only one OBR forecast instead of two.

Speculation is already mounting ahead of the autumn budget that Reeves could be forced to announce fresh tax rises, with the OBR known to be revisiting its forecasts for productivity, which look optimistic relative to those of other experts.

Asked about the outlook for interest rates, Bailey told peers that he expects them to continue falling after the four cuts the Bank has made since last summer – but he stressed the rising unpredictability of the global backdrop. "I've been very clear that I think the path's downward in my view and will continue to be so."

He also emphasised the Bank's continued concerns about the quality of data emanating from the Office for National Statistics, including a recent admission that it had overstated consumer price inflation for April.

"It is critical from our point of view that these issues are addressed," Bailey said. Discussing the inflation glitch, he added: "That was to do, as I understand it, with a spreadsheet that had a number in there for the number of vehicles that were on one particular level of fuel duty relative to others, which was wrong."

(Of course my solution would be to abolish the OBR )

[Josquius]

I'm not following this benefits change closely. But from what I've seen I'm not getting the fuhror. It's being presented as just benefits cuts.... Whilst according to this article it's a minor reform that  will make as many people better off (slightly more) as it makes worse off?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj924xvzrr2o


It does seem odd to me the mobility part is the one they're keeping. I personally know a very weird example there with a guy being paid decent money to be a private taxi taking a guy who can't drive to work daily. It seems massively inefficient.

[Tamas]

I'm not following this benefits change closely. But from what I've seen I'm not getting the fuhror. It's being presented as just benefits cuts.... Whilst according to this article it's a minor reform that  will make as many people better off (slightly more) as it makes works off?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj924xvzrr2o


It does seem odd to me the mobility part is the one they're keeping. I personally know a very weird example there with a guy being paid decent money to be a private taxi taking a guy who can't drive to work daily. It seems massively inefficient.

Yeah seems like complete failure to control the narrative.

Maybe Trump is right in what he is doing. Just repeat his own version of reality and eventually it will stick (defo worked for Orban). Government should have kept saying this is going to improve people's lives or something.

Being rational and reasonable is increasingly against the zeitgest.

[Sheilbh]

There is some good and some bad planned - but (which I think the government is admitting was a strategic error) the law they've brought forward only does the plans. So they have said there's going to be a plan on helping support people back into work including a right to try work which I think would be really positive. But that's not in this bill and they'll do it later.

What is here are the welfare reforms. The broad change to universal credit is not great, not terrible. I think the change on the incapacity "top-up" on universal credit is frozen for existing claimants at an extra £97 per week but or new claimants it's going to be cut to £50 a week and frozen until 2030. That is going to be a very significant cut for people. They've also raised the age at which you can claim that incapacity top up from 18 to 22. I've not really any idea how that can be justified or rationalised.

The other really, really good thing is that the most severely disabled people will basically no longer have to re-assessments for their eligibility for disability benefit - particularly PIP (the "personal independent payment").

But it's the stuff around those reassessments that I think are a real problem. So everyone else on PIP will have to re-assessed more regularly (my default view is that more regular interactions with officials in DWP is rarely good for anyone). And everyone on PIP will be re-assessed "now" - I say now because the DWP doesn't have the capacity to do it and estimates that they'll finish re-assessing current recipients in 2035. So disabled people will be spending the next 10 years wondering when the letter for their re-assessment falls.

The really big issue though is the eligibility criteria. It's really complex but basically your claim is assessed based on points in a number of categories around day-to-day life. To get PIP now you need to be at 4 points in at least one category.

What this means in practice is that a disabled person who needs help cutting up food, help washing below the waist, help dressing their lower body and supervision managing toilet needs will lose their PIP. And you can go through it in various other ways (the government have said that as a compromise maybe they'll move the threshold to 3 - just to note there's only one that is rated at 3, which is needing help to get in or out of a bath or a shower, because the assessment criteria are broadly scored in multiples of two). At a very high level basically unless you are so severely disabled that you literally need another person to help do day-to-day things you are likely to lose your PIP benefit.

Based on FOIA - so on the DWP's own assessment - over 400,000 will lose their PIP (and this includes some behavioural changes by people that would reduce the impact). The majority of working-age people with heart disease, inflammatory arthritis, hip and knee issues, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, sickle cell anemia will lose their benefit (there are others).

I'd add the other point is that the government keeps positioning this as wanting to encourage people into work. PIP is not an "out of work" benefit - it is a benefit to allow disabled people to fund their living needs which can be higher because of their disabilities. Broadly, being disabled is expensive. Of the 2.5 million people getting PIP, 500,000 are in work - on the DWP's own numbers over half of those in work will lose their PIP. Disability groups, such as the MS Society have flagged that many of their members have concerns because the PIP helps them pay for the help they need to access work. So on the government's own goals it is likely to be counterproductive - on this (I didn't like the case because I hate the courts ) but the courts found the DWP's consultation unlawful because it was misleading. The consultation was framed about helping people back into work while the internal, actual policy rationale was cost-cutting.

There are issues with welfare and particularly disability benefit. There are areas that need reform. But I don't think this is "rational and reasonable", I think it's cruel. It's going to make life far more difficult for people in our society who are vulnerable and need support, not least because being disabled is often very expensive.

I know you disagree Tamas but I do think it is morally indefensible to be passing an assisted dying bill opposed by every disability group in the country while at the same time cutting benefits designed to allow people with disabilities to live their lives with dignity and as much independence as possible (I'd note in both cases the ultimate safeguards are "officials" as Diane Abbott put it - in both cases it smacks of people writing laws who've never had to deal with the British state from a position of weakness or vulnerability). I think it sends a very clear message of whose voice and opinion has value and is listened to and who is perceived as peripheral and disposable.

I thought the winter fuel payment cut was bad politically and not worth it for the fiscal gain. I think this is wrong - but it will also turn out to be bad politically and not worth it for the fiscal gain.

[Legbiter]

Just coming up for air. We now have Reform leading in polls? How is Labour doing? Lib Dems are now the rural white high IQ people? Conservatives are what?

[Sheilbh]

We're one year into the parliament. At this point 14-15 years ago Ed Miliband had a fairly clear lead in the polls.

Reform are doing well. But they still show all the signs of a Farage party - infighting and any other tall poppies getting chopped down pretty rapidly. I mentioned before the party Chair Zia Yusuf who was impressive and seemed to professionalising things. There was some sort of blow up and he got fired as party chair and left the party for about 24 hours before being talked back to chair a "DOGE" like policy function. The new party Chair is less of an organiser - a fairly camp former doctor who spent about 20 years on daytime TV (for example he hosted Most Haunted with Derek Acorah).

Similarly they've announced a very weird policy on non-doms and their new MP used her slot at PMQs to push for a burkah ban - despite that not being party policy and something Farage has repeatedly opposed. One of their new county council leaders has resigned after 41 days because it's a demanding job and his health's not up to it. So on the one hand there are reasons for them to be optimistic - on the other the issues of any insurgent party and the recurring issues of Farage's parties do seem to be there.

Not clear how the Lib Dems are doing because no-one pays any attention to them between elections but I'd expect they can do well in their happy place - pose as marginally to the left of Labour in some constituencies, as the nice (but not Labour) alternative to the Tories in other constituencies, with devoted NIMBYism everywhere.

I'm not sure on the Tories. The problem they have is the previous 14 years of government. Being in opposition is difficult. Being in opposition after 14 years of government which saw you kicked out with a record Labour landslide is really tough. Of the strategies offered I think Badenoch's is the right one - but I'm not sure they've earned the right to a hearing from voters yet.

Labour have struggled - I can sort of see the shape of a strategy they're trying to do but I think they slightly fucked it already. My own view is they're screwed until they get rid of Rachel Reeves. And still think Starmer's lack of politics is a really big problem. They've been third in some recent polls and Labour doesn't like challenging their leaders but it might happen. If I was being super-machivellian, I'd say that might be the best bet for the Labour right (who are running Number 10) to get a true believer, like Wes Streeting, as leader.

Incidentally there's more talk recently than for a while of Corbyn starting a new party.

And that's where I think the Polanski pitch to take the Greens in an "eco-populist" direction makes sense - you can sort of see a Green-Corbyn-Gaza Independents alliance that could cause a lot of problems for Labour in big cities with big graduate populations, as well as areas with a large Muslim voter base.

If the Tories have a pincer movement in their heartland of Reform on one side and the Lib Dems on the other you could easily see Labour facing the same with Reform in one heartland and Corbyn/Greens/Gaza in the other.

The challenge is trust in both of the traditional parties has failed at the same time as they're both perceived to be incapable of governing and delivering change. I think either they need to adapt to that quickly or they're at risk of being replaced (there may be a few chaotic years with FPTP and multi-party politics - but it is designed to produce a two party system). But even if they adapt I'm not sure how they can go about earning back trust again.

[Josquius]

Maybe Labour can panic and give us voting reform? Pretty please? 

I do hope something changes with reform and the massive media bias in favour of them. It's getting called out regularly lately.

But I'm worried. Taking over the country looks unlikely but I get the feeling they will run a bunch of councils off a cliff and manage to pin the blame on labour. I should get down to the bookies as gambling on it will ensure it doesn't happen but I believe one particular especially horrid reform member is going to be the MP of my hometown after the next election

[Sheilbh]

Grimes?

One thing we'll have to see is whether, as Reform get stronger, there's anti-Reform tactical voting. Now they have MPs and are polling well it's a real possibility which I think makes tactical voting more likely - but not sure what the outcome would necessarily be/who that would favour.

[Josquius]

Grimes?

Thats the bugger.
I don't gamble as a rule but I am giving serious thought to do this now. Curious how to go about it.

One thing we'll have to see is whether, as Reform get stronger, there's anti-Reform tactical voting. Now they have MPs and are polling well it's a real possibility which I think makes tactical voting more likely - but not sure what the outcome would necessarily be/who that would favour.

The trouble is as you say there's the potential for the left to grow more organised.
I certainly don't see myself voting Green next election... But then I'm from the "sensible left". There's an awful lot of sillier left wing people out there who just can't accept reality and absolutely won't vote for the lesser evil of a centrist labour in order to stop fascists.

This is a huge problem for Labour and key to why I think their attempts to appeal to Reform voters are an error. They've never going to be scummy enough for people inclined to vote that way. Moderate people who decide to vote Reform aren't voting on the scummy stuff, for them its a less politically involved "things just keep getting worse so lets give someone else a shot".
There's also the key vibes over policies problem. Reform are presenting themselves as the upstarts who actually represent working class people. Reality doesn't matter in this.

Meanwhile in doing this Labour are really turning off both people to the left - again, for some Labour will never be left enough, but these are far fewer in number considering Labour is left-coded by default.
But also moderate people who see things aren't actually getting better, Labour is just more of the same, etc....

[Sheilbh]

The trouble is as you say there's the potential for the left to grow more organised.
I certainly don't see myself voting Green next election... But then I'm from the "sensible left". There's an awful lot of sillier left wing people out there who just can't accept reality and absolutely won't vote for the lesser evil of a centrist labour in order to stop fascists.

This is a huge problem for Labour and key to why I think their attempts to appeal to Reform voters are an error. They've never going to be scummy enough for people inclined to vote that way. Moderate people who decide to vote Reform aren't voting on the scummy stuff, for them its a less politically involved "things just keep getting worse so lets give someone else a shot".

The problem for Labour is that it's not a choice. They need to do both - which I think is possible.

I think there's about 100 seats where Reform is second - of those, about 90 are currently held by Labour. Similarly there's 40 seats where the Greens are second - of those, 39 are currently held by Labour (this is why I think it'd be mistake for the Greens to have two rural, Tory beating MPs as their leaders). There's also Scotland with the SNP second in about 30-40 Labour held seats. Part of this is just winning a massive landslide but I also think that all of those parties challenging Labour are change parties - and my view is that the same things that drive people to vote Green will be driving people to vote Reform and vice versa.

It's why I think the analysis really matters and I think the focus of parts of the left, a lot of the media, the Rest is Politics kind of discourse, Starmer has basically that the problem is populism. The way to fight back is to reinforce and strengthen the existing institutions and more technocratic forms of decision making. My view is that populism is the symptom not the cause of a lot of the problems we're facing. Those existing institutions and technocratic forms gave us two failed wars, a global financial crisis, a decade of austerity, almost twenty years of flat-lining productivity, decaying high streets etc. So the risk is, as Tony Blair's put it, that the mainstream parties become the parties of the status quo and at a time when that's not delivering for many, many people - they're going to vote you out. All elections boil down to "time for a change" v "more of the same" and mainstream parties everywhere need to be thinking about how they can imagine, communicate and deliver change (and it may involve slaughtering some sacred cows).

There's also the key vibes over policies problem. Reform are presenting themselves as the upstarts who actually represent working class people. Reality doesn't matter in this.

I think you can get into definitional debates in a few ways which I don't think are particularly helpful. So there was a big MRP poll in the Times today and while I really don't believe it because I think in many areas anti-Reform voters would informally coalesce - but at the minute they're winning everywhere but very much in Wales, the North, the Midlands:


There's a chance they'll be the biggest part in the Senedd at the next Welsh election and are within touching distance of replacing Labour as the opposition in Scotland.

Looking at the in-depth reporting the place that struck me is Liverpool Walton because I've got family there, I know it pretty well and it's (I think) the most deprived constituency in the country. Reform have already picked up some votes there, knocking Labour from 85% of the vote in 2019 to 70% in 2024. In the MRP Reform would win it, but it's neck-and-neck.

Meanwhile in doing this Labour are really turning off both people to the left - again, for some Labour will never be left enough, but these are far fewer in number considering Labour is left-coded by default.
But also moderate people who see things aren't actually getting better, Labour is just more of the same, etc....

There are millions of people who rely on PIP - just like there are millions of pensioners who get the winter fuel benefit.

[Valmy]

So what are the conditions that are forcing Labour to do such unpopular things? Are things just really dire and require extreme sacrifices?

If so I hope Labour is front loading those and have some time to put itself in a stronger position come 2029. The opposition to Reform obviously needs to get organized either way.