Reeves gets boost from gullible hacks

The government’s approach to spinning the spending review appears to rely on the expectation that if you throw a big number at hacks, especially non-specialist hacks, they will report the big number and not check the small print.

This has led to some glaring schoolboy/schoolgirl errors on the pledge of £39bn for social housing over 10 years.

For starters, both the BBC and the Guardian call it a “boost”, even though the £39bn touted isn’t the extra cash, but the 10-year total for an existing funding stream.

The BBC says:

The chancellor will unveil a £39bn boost for social and affordable housing when she speaks at 12:30 BST…

despite the sum to be unveiled being all over the papers.

Similarly, the Guardian’s headline is Rachel Reeves to unveil £39bn housing boost in spending review shake-up.

In fact, the Guardian’s live blog comes closest to looking behind the numbers, quoting a somewhat garbled post from Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation thinktank.

News this morning dominated by money for affordable housing. The TOTAL funding of £39bn over ten years is being completed to the EXTRA capital investment by this government over five years. I'm reserving judgement on whether housing is a winner until we see more detail.

— Ruth Curtice (@ruthcurtice.bsky.social) 11 June 2025 at 10:08

I think she is saying that that the money is promised a long way ahead and we don’t know the funding profile. In fact, Rachel Reeves is promising funding not just for this Parliament, not just the next one, but the one after that.

Bizarrely, the iPaper considers the fact that the pledge of money the government doesn’t have covers 10 year instead of five to be a “win” for deputy prime minister Angela Rayner.

Housing Today calls the £3.9bn a year on average “a significant increase” on the £2.5bn allocated annually under the 2021-26 Affordable Homes Programme once ‘top-ups’ were taken into account, but that doesn’t take into account inflation over 10 years.

Of course a lot of the papers have self-serving scripted quotes from spin doctors masquerading as “sources”, including the Mirror:

A Government source said: “The Government is investing in Britain’s renewal, so working people are better off.

"We’re turning the tide against the unacceptable housing crisis in this country with the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, delivering on our Plan for Change commitment to get Britain building.”

 

New money for old

I’m not sure what has left me more gobsmacked – the smoke and mirrors in the government’s claim of an extra £15bn for local transport in the North and Midlands or the credulity of the hacks for falling for it.

Lets start with some basic facts. City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements (CRSTS) have already been announced (by the Tories) for both 2022-27 and 2027-32. But the government has scrapped the second phase of CRSTS and rebranded it Transport for Cities (TCR)

This document, which was withdrawn today in a rewriting of history of which Stalin would be proud, set out £13.8bn of CRSTS from 2027-32, boosted by £5bn in October 2023 by the addition of cash that the Tories said they were saving by not taking HS2 beyond the midlands.

The BBC tamely points out that:

Sunak had also announced some of these same projects, including the development of a mass transit network in West Yorkshire, in his Network North plan, intended to compensate for the decision to scrap the HS2 line north of Birmingham.

Labour reviewed these projects when they came to power in July, arguing they had not been fully funded.

So the gist of the story is that the Tories had announced £14bn, Labour queried it, and came back and said was now £15bn. But it's the same money.

I was as sceptical as anyone about the “Network North” nonsense, where the Tories promised money nine years ahead based on savings from cutting something they didn’t have the money for in the first place – but is Labour any different?

Only two years (2027-28 and 2028-29) are likely to fall within next week’s spending review and the three subsequent years are in the next Parliament. Labour probably won’t set out its total spending envelope for those years for a good while yet.

According to the detailed spending profiles released by the Departmentfor Transport today, £10.2bn (two thirds) will fall in those last three years.

So, basically, Labour is doing exactly what it accused the Tories of doing – making what can only be described as “unfunded” announcements of billions of pounds for transport beyond its time in office or its spending plans.

And, interestingly, while the document claims that “Over £500 million of TCR funding has been brought forward into 2025-26 and 2026-27”, it also says that “Funding allocations for the final year of the CRSTS programme will be confirmed in due course”. 

This means not only that half a billion of the “extra” money depends on the CRSTS programme staying at existing levels last two years, but that it might actually be cut by more than the £500m that has allegedly been “brought forward”.

 

The Times tears up its credibility

The Times has the latest spin story about government capital spending plans with a story whose feeble headline, Rachel Reeves to spend big in redwall — what could it mean?, belies a preposterously overblown opening line.

Rachel Reeves is preparing to tear up Treasury spending rules and announce a multibillion-pound investment package in the north and Midlands to combat the threat of Reform.

Is she really preparing to "tear up" Treasury spending rules? Obviously not:

Across the country Reeves is likely to have up to £100 billion of capital investment to announce, having changed the fiscal rules in her budget last year.

So she already has more scope for capital spending, having changed the fiscal rules in her budget last year to allow more borrowing.

So what is new? You have to go a long way down the piece to find the substance to the story:

Reeves ordered a review of the Treasury’s Green Book, which sets out the rules that determine which capital projects qualify for approval, in January.

The review is expected to conclude that the government should give greater priority to public sector investment in areas of lower economic productivity.

The Times has been told that it will be published on the same day as the comprehensive spending review. A ten-year infrastructure plan will be published a week later by Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury.

So, more rules being tweaked, rather than torn up.

And how new is all this? In January Civil Service World reported that:

Reeves outlined the aims of the government's Green Book review, which is set to report back at the conclusion of this year's Spending Review. The SR is due to conclude on June 11.

She said: “As the metro mayor of Liverpool, Steve Rotherham, has called for, we will review the Green Book and how it is being used to provide objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London, and the South East. This means that investment in all regions is given a fair hearing by the Treasury that I lead.” 

But here’s a “source” in the Times to provide the spin, not by giving new information but by reminding us of what Reeves said previously:

A government source said that Reeves had been clear that she wanted to review the Green Book to provide “objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London and the southeast”. This would mean that “investment in all regions” was given a “fair hearing by the Treasury”.

Cut the crap

This Guardian article Reeves in standoff with ministers over proposed cuts to public services by Jessica Elgot is spoilt, not so much by spin (of which there is plenty) as a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of words.

Let’s start with the opening line:

The Treasury is in a standoff with some ministers over proposed cuts to public services including policing and social housing.

So there are proposed cuts to social housing? Well, no. Leaving aside the fact that capital funding for social housing isn’t really a service, it becomes clear that what is in question isn’t a cut at all but a proposal for extra cash that falls short of what Angela Rayner, whose brief it is, would like.

There are also clashes between the Reeves and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, over funding for social housing.

[…]

However, Rayner is understood to be dissatisfied with the level of funding for the next phase of the programme.

The reference to the “next phase”, as Elgot explains, is a potential increase on £2bn for 2026-27 announced in March, which “was described as a “down payment” on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes”.

Some of the “further funding” to be announced at the spending review will top up this £2bn in 2026-27, which is currently less on an annual basis than the £11.5bn on the 2021-26 programme. And chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to put in quite a bit more to deliver what she promised would be “the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation”.

Elgot points out – probably after someone who thought it was a get-out pointed it out to her  – that when Reeves “said housing will be one of the key beneficiaries of the £113bn in capital spending”, she “did not specify social homes”.

This is, if you will forgive the pun, beside the point. The affordable homes programme has always been about “social and affordable housing”, as the Reeves quote above illustrates. 

The distinction does not detract from the suggestion in Elgot’s previous piece of spin that the £113bn that Reeves conjured out of thin air will include “significant cash for housebuilding as Labour strives to meet its 1.5m homes target” and the anonymous assertion from an spin doctor masquerading as a “source” that “These will be Labour homes built by a Labour government.”

Governments often pretend that continuing spending on something at the existing rate is new money (Labour has made this worse by branding things that the Tories were already doing as part of a "Plan for Change") and it is arguable that not continuing a funding stream at the existing real-terms level would be a “cut”.

But here, while the extra money for housing may not be quite as much as Elgot previously led us to believe, or as much as Rayner would like, nothing in this story justifies calling it a cut.

 

 

"There is £113bn that was not there"

 

This piece Reeves to champion £113bn of new capital investment in spending review by Jessica Elgot in the Guardian does exactly what it says on the tin - talks about the things the chancellor wants to talk about.

Rachel Reeves will put £113bn of new capital investment at the forefront of the spending review and argue that the billions of investment in homes, transport and energy would only have happened under Labour.

The billions unlocked by the change to the fiscal rules, which will be spent over the next parliament, will be at the centre of the government’s narrative in a fortnight’s time in an acknowledgment that Labour MPs need a better economic story to address rising discontent among the public.

So, just to be clear, that’s £113bn of free money that has been magically “unlocked by the change to the fiscal rules”? No, it will (probably) be additional borrowing.

And the claim that the money will be spent “over the next parliament” is as dodgy as it is lazy, not just because the next parliament will probably begin in 2029, but because Reeves doesn’t actually specify a time period, despite implying one with a dodgy "and":

“At the spending review coming up in June, we will invest more in capital, and we’re going to invest £113bn more in capital spending than the plans we inherited from the previous government.”

In fact:

“Reeves will hope details of how the government will spend the £113bn package will be enough to stave off further disquiet over harsh cuts to day-to-day spending expected in the spending review. Departments had been asked to model reductions in their budgets of as much as 7% over the next four years.”

So, not only is this the point of the story – “to stave off further disquiet” – the cuts to day-to day spending might be the source of some of the extra capital spending. In fact, some resource (revenue) spending might just be reclassified as capital.

There is a lot of self-serving guff from people who Elgot chooses to call “sources” but who are in fact spin doctors speaking on behalf of the government. Here, a “source” gives advance justification for the recycling of announcements:

Treasury sources said Reeves understood that the government needed to set out anew how the billions would be spent.

See what they did there?

The rest of the story is full of the usual scripted quotes:

One source said: “That is real money. It’s not empty promises, or the unsigned cheques the Tories used to do. It’ll be proper money, and this investment in Britain’s future will be a part of the theme of the spending review.

“There are trade-offs in spending reviews. But she’s made a clear political choice to invest in the long-term projects that will make a real difference to people’s communities. These will be Labour homes built by a Labour government. All this investment is Labour – no one else would have done it. We changed those rules and now there is £113bn that was not there.”

Pass the sickbag.

U-turn if you want to

Hacks so love a cliche that they have universally declared what Keir Starmer said yesterday to be a "U-turn", despite having no idea how much, or how little, the policy to restrict winter fuel payments will be tweaked.

This is what the prime minister actually said at PMQs: 

we want to ensure that as we go forward, more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will only make decisions we can afford. That is why we will look at that as part of a fiscal event.

If you look at any sensible definition of  U-turn, it would involve reversing a policy or changing it so substantially that it can be seen no longer to be operative. But Starmer didn't actually say that anything would change, only that he wants to ensure that more people get the payments - a garbled mix of aspiration and certainty. And a decision will be sometime in the future "as part of a fiscal event". 

You are eligible for the winter fuel payments if you get certain means-tested benefits as ministers pointed out after restricting the payments. They launched a campaign to encourage people to apply for pension credit, which could be described (not by me) as seeking to ensure that more people will get the payments.

But I suspect that hacks were briefed in advance to interpret Starmer's statement as saying a lot more than he actually said, much like when Tony Blair didn't actually announce a review of Clause IV.

In an excellent piece in the Guardian, Labour MP Jon Trickett only says Starmer "indicated he may U-turn", which is about right.

The important point about all of this is that, if hacks use words that overstate what has happened they don't just con their readers in the short term, but devalue those words for when they might actually apply. 

The next time a government completely reverses a policy, hacks will have no way of stressing that it really is a U-turn. 

A language deficit

This piece by Will Dunn in the New Statesman Why George Osborne still runs Britain is fascinating in its analysis but ultimately flawed in its adoption of Osborne's language.

The premise is that Osborne's narrative about "the deficit" still pervades the political orthodoxy, boxing in current chancellor Rachel Reeves and the government as a whole.

But it begins with a crass error: 

Fifteen years ago, on 11 May 2010, George Osborne arrived in the Treasury with a mandate to change the British economy. The deficit had reached more than £100bn, a hole in Britain’s finances twice the size of the armed forces.

And 

Part of the reason Osborne’s cuts to the state were so deep was that he planned to eliminate the deficit in four years.

There's no such thing as "the deficit". In recent years, governments have spent more than they receive in tax or other income but, as Dunn acknowledges without realising in the second quote, a deficit is not a permanent fixture so as to require the definite article. 

Despite setting out clearly how Osborne managed to make his story about public spending the dominant narrative since 2010, Dunn has failed to realise that Osborne's presentation of "the deficit" as an inevitability was his ultimate lie.

As the Tories continued to spend more than was coming in, increasing the country's debt, they convinced the media and therefore the public that because they had reduced "the deficit" their management of the public finances was a success. 

It is of course possible to run a surplus and for the national debt to go down, but Osborne presented a slowing down of the rate at which the debt went up as if that was what he had achieved.

The lie continued for the whole of the decade as the Tories continued to run a deficit and the national debt ballooned. 

In 2020, Rishi Sunak, then chancellor, said the Tories would "always balance the books".

There's another strange lack of sensitivity to language elsewhere in the piece:

The first and most important means by which the British economy would be healed, he said, was “active monetary policy”. Or, as a normal person would put it, cheap debt.

Economists use "debt" as synonym for borrowing in a way that normal people don't. Economists, and business journalists like Dunn, talk about corporate acquisitions for example as being financed by debt, by which they mean borrowing. 

But for normal people debt not borrowing itself but the outcome of it. 

In attempting to translate the euphemism, Dunn has merely given the reader another euphemism.

Normalising fascism

This shocking piece by BBC political editor Chris Mason Starmer's robust language nods to immigration failures is a classic example of how the corporation's twin obsessions of balance and sucking up to the government of the day end up normalising extremism.

Let's start with the word "robust" in the headline, for which Mason is unlikely to be responsible. It's a euphemism that no journalist should ever use, designed as it is to disguise aggression. 

But the gist of the piece, for which Mason is wholly responsible and which BBC hacks have done for years, is to tell the story from the government's point of view, which inevitably leads to crassly justifying its actions.

So we get this bullshit:

Sir Keir Starmer's language felt like an acknowledgement of that central point: here was a Labour prime minister, a former human rights lawyer, claiming "we risk becoming an island of strangers."

It is a phrase some, particularly on the left, regard as repulsive.

Others counter that it is a widely held perception which it is high time those in high office shared.

Too polite to raise the similarities with Enoch Powell, Mason does the usual trick of associating repulsion with this kind of language with people "on the left" - a minority whose views we can dismiss.

Then the classic BBC balance, that "others counter" this view. I certainly haven't heard this from anyone. Probably government spin doctors.

Then Mason brings in the fascist Farage, who the BBC has boosted "for years and years".

Nigel Farage argues, as he has for years and years, that politicians have been far too slow to get how much immigration matters to so many people.

Labour are acutely aware of Farage's capacity to communicate in a way that resonates with those who feel successive governments have not just ignored them on this issue, but belittled and demeaned their views too.

That is why the prime minister is using the language he is now.

So, that's all good Chris.

Less of this sort of thing

In another excellent column for the New Statesman, Hannah Barnes criticises the way the equality impact assessment for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill does away with any concerns about its potential impact on vulnerable adults:

The safeguards provided for in the bill, which apply at every stage of the process for seeking an assisted death, would help to minimise the risk of any eligible person, including disabled people, from being coerced or pressured by another person into requesting or proceeding with an assisted death. 

I've reproduced the sentence in full here but I must beg to differ with Barnes: the sentence does not do away with any concerns but merely pretends to.

Look at the key phrase "help to minimise". What exactly does that mean? Almost nothing, and at best, "reduce".

The word "minimise", sometimes with "help to" in front of it as a kind of admission that it is not true, is much loved by spin doctors and press officers but should not appear in any serious government document unless it is meant literally.

"Minimise" means to make as small as possible but is often used as a synonym for "reduce", which it isn't.

Putting "help to" in front of it is only really justified if you know for sure that something or someone else will complete the job of minimisation. If not, you are really just saying "reduce" with the slight of hand of pretending that something is being reduced as far as possible. 

And of course there is a long way between the risk being "minimised" - reduced as far as possible - and being reduced to an acceptable level.

It's just spin.

Similarly, the equality impact assessment has other misleading phrases based on "help": 

steps a doctor can take to help ensure information is understood and retained

the government has a duty to the statute book and has offered technical support to the sponsor to help ensure the legislation, if passed, is technically and legally workable

What does "help ensure" mean? You either ensure something or you don't. You don't leave your outcome dependent on the contribution of others if you want to "ensure it". It's nonsense.

It's very worrying that the language of overstatement and spin has made its way into what should be objective assessments in official documents. It needs to be minimised. Someone needs to ensure that it doesn't happen. 

A drop in the ocean?

 My friend (from way back) Sandra Laville reports that:

 "There is very little evidence that protections for nature are a blocker to development, the government has admitted in its own impact assessment of the controversial new planning and infrastructure bill.

...the central reason given by the government for the new legislation, that nature is a blocker to development – promoted by prime minister Keir Starmer, chancellor Rachel Reeves and housing secretary Angela Rayner – has been undermined by the government’s own impact assessment." 

Absolutely brilliant journalism, but unlikely to be picked up by the tabloids who love stories about bats, newts and owls blocking new infrastructure and housing.

Meanwhile, the government is putting a more positive spin on the impact assessment:

 "The Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s Impact Assessment, published today (Tuesday, May 6) has shown the government’s pro-growth changes to get Britain building could benefit the economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years."

So, first of all, "could" does not mean "yes", but lets assume it will happen.

£7.5 billion over 10 years compares with UK GDP of nearly three trillion last year.

A drop in the ocean? Insert your own environmental metaphor.

Stringer nails the "difficult decisions" lie

Labour MP Graham Stringer made a plea this morning for ministers to stop using the George Osborne line that punishing vulnerable people constitutes “difficult decisions” – the political equivalent of “this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you".

He told the Telegraph:

“They keep saying these are difficult decisions, they are decisions they’d prefer not to do. Those decisions are difficult for the people on the receiving end. If you need the winter fuel allowance, that’s a really difficult decision for you. If you need Pip [personal independence payments] payments which are going to be attacked this autumn, that’s a difficult decision for you.”

But, because those around the Labour government are basically Tories at heart (or worse, Blairites) they are addicted to their cliches.

Today, people speaking for Labour have wheeled the difficult decisions line out again and again.

To be fair, Labour chairman Ellie Reeves mixed tough and difficult, although I’m not sure the message, if you don’t like it, tough is an appealing one.

“Well, interestingly, none of the other political parties have said how they would fund the NHS. They might criticise Labour’s policies and the tough decisions we’ve taken but none of them have put forward solutions about how they would fund the NHS, how they would get those waiting lists down, how they would recruit the extra GPs that we need so people can get appointments when they need them.

 “We’ve had to make tough decisions to stabilise the economy, to invest in the NHS, where waiting lists were at record highs.

“There have been tough and difficult decisions, but they’ve been the right decisions to stabilise the economy and to get those waiting lists down.”

As I have said before, from now on, every time a politician claims to have taken a “difficult decision”, s/he should be asked to clarify – difficult for you or difficult for the people who will suffer the consequences?

Meanwhile Starmer was rightly asked whether he is a coward after not campaigning in Runcorn and Helsby where Labour lost a parliamentary seat by six votes.

To prove he isn’t a coward, he dodged the question:

“The results are disappointing and I could stand here and say to you opposition parties always do well in by-elections like this, it was very close in Runcorn, et cetera, et cetera.”

So glad he didn’t stand there and say that.

 

 

Plus ca change

The Government response to this story about the Climate Change Committee warning that its response to climate change is wholly inadequate is a classic illustration of how it trivialises everything, repeating tired slogans about a plan for change while changing very little.

Here's the scale of the problem:

Lady Brown, the chair of the adaptation subgroup of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the statutory adviser to government, said: “We are seeing no change in activity from the new government, despite the fact that … it’s clear to the public that the current approach just isn’t working. The country is at risk, people are at risk, and there is not enough being done.”

Here's the response: 

As part of our plan for change we are investing a record £2.65bn to repair and build flood defences, protecting tens of thousands of homes and businesses and helping local communities become more resilient to the effects of climate change such as overheating and drought.

Last year's Conservative manifesto said:

In 2020, we announced a doubling of capital funding into flood defences in England to a record £5.6 billion over 2021-2027. We will maintain this record flooding funding to continue to protect homes, farms and businesses.

This is £933m a year but the Tories spent £1.063bn in 2021-22. The Government spokesperson forgot to tell you that Labour's £2.65bn is over two years. Taking inflation into account, including what half  of it would be worth in 2026-27, any short-term increase on 2021-22 is marginal.

In February, environment secretary Steve Reed was quoted as saying:

This Government inherited flood assets in their poorest condition on record, as years of underinvestment and damaging storms left 3,000 of the Environment Agency’s 38,000 high-consequence assets at below the required condition.

So Labour's "plan for change" involves doing roughly the same as what led to this.

Woeful

This reasoned and analytical piece from Hannah Barnes the New Statesman on the Supreme Court's ruling on the meaning of sex under the Equality Act should make the hacks at the Guardian blush.

While they have focused on promoting victimhood to the point of scaremongering, Barnes not only takes a balanced approach, but shows that Starmer remains all at sea on the issue.

The response from Labour has been woeful. It took the Prime Minister six days to say he was “really pleased” with the “clarity” brought by the judgement. His spokesperson confirmed that Starmer no longer believed trans women were women. But the PM hasn’t condemned the threats made to women during the trans rights activist protests that followed the judgement, at which some carried placards bearing abusive messages, including “The only good Terf is a [dead] one” and “Bring back witch burning”.

She also skewers Labour for its attempts to rewrite history:

A Labour source told the Telegraph the judgement showed why it was “so important that Keir hauled the Labour Party back to the common-sense position the public take on these sorts of issues”. This was, the source said, “one of the reasons the country felt Labour was safe to elect”. Really? Wasn’t it Starmer who, in 2021, called the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield’s statement “only women have a cervix” “something that shouldn’t be said”.

Of course, the Labour source wasn't really a source, just someone given the privilege of anonymity to spin a self-serving line with a scripted quote or two. 

By contrast, George Eaton's "interview" with Steve Reed in the same publication is an example of a hack phoning it in. 

To call it a puff piece would be to overstate the amount of effort that went into it.

But it is full of free hits for Reed with the lines he wanted to get across and devoid of challenge from Eaton, who no doubt has a long career of access ahead of him, after being cleared by the paedophile Peter Wilby over a scandal that should have ended his career.

He didn't say, she didn't say

This article The strange case of the writer landing A-lister interviews for local magazines about another murky corner of journalism is fascinating but ultimately unsatisfying and unsatisfactory.

It's pitched as a "strange case" piece because ultimately the hacks writing it, or their editors and lawyers, don't feel they can quite nail down the deception at which they are hinting.

But the big problem, in a story that is basically about transparency and whether hacks can be held accountable for claiming that someone said something, is that it is crying out for someone to say something on the record.

Instead, we get...

sources close to the would-be PM said

sources close to the stars involved said 

Some people the Guardian spoke to 

The Guardian understands 

The Guardian understands

the Guardian understands

sources close to the stars say

The Guardian understands

Bizarrely, the hacks claim that:

Following the trail of how journalists source their stories is, by necessity, a tricky business. Reporters do not reveal their sources as a point of principle, and when asked multiple times to confirm how he had landed these interviews, Bale declined.

Unsurprising though it is that hacks with such a line in "sources" would want to talk up the mystique of the hack's sources, this is utter bollocks. Bale is claiming to have on-the-record quotes from celebrities. Guff about not naming your source for such material is irrelevant.

The article does come close to hinting at what may be behind a lot of Bale's work:

It is clear that in the world of showbiz journalism, there are many ways to do business. There are, undoubtedly, agents, managers and sources who will brief on behalf of their high-profile clients in a way that can be spun up into interviews.

There's that word again, "sources". 

That hacks are taking quotes from PRs and attributing them to people they have never spoken to is one of journalism's dirty little secrets. If it is subject to a weird omerta, it's just another way the public gets misled.

Confused? You will be

Naga Munchetty's interview with Ed Miliband on BBC Breakfast this morning shows the media's obsession with painting some people as losing out from any change - and provides a reminder that the interviewing hack isn't always right.

She was picking up on a story in the Telegraph about zonal electricity pricing:

Ed Miliband is poised to approve changes that would mean households in the South pay more for electricity than those in Scotland and the North.

As Miliband tried to explain, this wouldn't mean that prices in the South would rise to subsidise people further North - just that some people might get a cheaper electricity because it doesn't have to travel so far.

But Munchetty struggled to understand that people paying more than others isn't necessarily the same as people paying more than they do now - that there can be winners without losers - and kept conflating the two concepts.

As a result, the interview just went round in circles and ended with Munchetty hoping for some clarity in the future.

There may be, but it may not be the explanation that hacks are looking for.

Doing McSweeney's dirty work

If you're a hack who regularly finds yourself doing the government's dirty work for it, you need to ask yourself if you are much more than a spin doctor, one step removed.

Despite some great journalism in the past, this is a question that Guardian political editor Pippa Crerar needs to start asking herself.

Take this piece of spin: Ministers privately ruling out scrapping two-child benefits cap and particularly the opening two paragraphs.

Ministers are privately ruling out scrapping the two-child benefit cap despite warnings from charities that a failure to do so could result in the highest levels of child poverty since records began.

Government sources said charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour’s plans.

We start off with a claim that ministers plural are saying something but they then become "Government Sources", who both/all have the same single quote attributed to them. 

Something doesn't add up. Then:

"The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said. 

Given that this - and the obsession with "key voters" - is a key Morgan McSweeney claim, we can probably assume that he is the plural ministers and the plural sources. But in any case, what evidence does Crerar give us that her mysterious sources speak authoritatively?

And there's the rub. If they aren't speaking on behalf of the government, the story is worthless, and if they are they aren't really sources. They are just getting a free hit to put scripted quotes into a newspaper to justify government policy.

Which brings us to education secretary Bridget Phillipson on BBC Breakfast this morning. She's not only an actual minister, but the co-chair of the government's child poverty task force.

Asked if the government has ruled out living the two-child benefit cap, she replied: "Our work is still underway; we've ruled out nothing in any area."

Has this shot down Crerar's story or is this just an example of government by cowardice, where she does the government's dirty work for it, helping it say one thing publicly and something else in public?

This takes back to the opening few words of her piece and indeed the headline. Are ministers "privately" ruling out scrapping the two-child benefit cap?

Almost certainly not. Even if it is plural minsters saying it, they are not doing so "privately". 

If you say something to a journalist with the clear intention that it gets into a newspaper, you do not do so privately.

The intro to the piece should probably read something like: "Someone in government is spinning a line to distract from warnings from charities that a failure to scrap the two-child benefit cap could result in the highest levels of child poverty since records began."

Client journalism in action

This article by Peter Walker in the Guardian ‘Cutting DEI won’t fill potholes’: Labour ready to play long game against Farage is presented as analysis but does little more than give unnamed officials a series of free hits with scripted attack lines.

The analysis "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" is conspicuous by its absence.

We are told what Labour aides “believe” Farage being grumpy about Labour attacking him on the NHS and closeness to Putin shows - that he “realises he is vulnerable on both issues”.

“He can try to airbrush history as much as he likes, but he said those fawning things about Putin on the record, and they have aged very badly,” one said. 

I'm not one for asserting what other people believe but I would speculate that Labour aides can believe their luck getting this stuff into a friendly paper. It happens all the time.

A Labour official, possibly the same one, gets another free hit to speculate with another obviously scripted quote about what might happen if Reform take control of councils:

“Saying you’ll cut diversity and inclusion to save money won’t cut it when you’ve got a council to run,” a Labour official said. “You can trim all the DEI programmes you like, but that won’t fill the potholes or magic up any SEND pupil places.”

And the free hits keep coming:

“We will keep punching the bruises over Putin and the NHS, and while it’s probably too early in the cycle now, at some point the issue of fiscal credibility will become more and more important,” the Labour official said.

“But ultimately it’s about us delivering on things that people notice, whether it’s the money in their pocket, GP appointments or potholes.”

Ultimately the point of the piece is for Labour spin doctors - for that's who they are - to tell supporters who think now is the time to panic that it isn't and that they have a cunning plan.

Modern client journalism in a nutshell.

Distasteful lecturing

This article from BBC hacks on football chanting is fascinating for the language it uses, and then backs away from, in defining the problem.

Chanting from Man U fans at the weekend is described as sexist and misogynistic, discriminatory, abusive and offensive.

Until we get to the issue of why the FA isn’t taking action:

There is a feeling that if the FA took action every time there was a distasteful song they would be charging a club virtually every game.

We're basically back to the football pundits' moronic response to players being rugby-tackled during corners - if you gave a penalty every time it happens, you would have a penalty ever five minutes - with no recognition that enforcement might actually change behaviour.

But also, look how the language has been allowed to change. The sexist, misogynistic, discriminatory, abusive and offensive chanting is now just distasteful.

Meanwhile, over on BBC Breakfast, culture secretary Lisa Nandy was obviously sent out to describe a possible buy British campaign as "lecturing" people, using obviously perjorative language.

To his credit, presenter Jon Kay responded that it wasn't really lecturing, was it, and she backed down.

I think it's a great response when politicians use exaggeration to make a point for interviewers to pull them up on it.

End of lecture.

Is Labour misleading the public over duty of candour?

The Guardian reports that ministers are planning to water down the "Hillsborough law" that Keir Starmer has repeatedly promised, which would impose a duty of candour on public bodies and officials: 

Despite Starmer’s promises, families have been told that the government’s new draft is based more on public authorities signing up to a charter, without strong legal enforcement, and does not include the funding for legal representation. A government media briefing last week that said the draft law could have led to civil servants being prosecuted for telling a white lie about being late for work to bosses has prompted fury from families, as it has always been clear that criminal sanctions would be for police or public officials misleading the public.

If this is true, it's typical of the way that Labour operates in power. Promises of transparency evaporate.

Not to mention spinning nonsense in the media to justify it. 

No irony there.

Who would believe it?

 This article by Rob Waugh on Press Gazette is not only a cracking piece of journalism; it also (as the author himself has said) sends you down a bit of a rabbit hole.

One of the suspect ubiquitous commenters, "Barbara Santini, a young London-based psychologist and therapist", apparently Whatsapped the editor with a threat to send in her lawyers and the assertion:

“I am an accredited consultant for Peaches and Screams and my credentials and professional affiliations are a matter of record.”

That's a sex toy retailer.

Anyway, the article cites a number of articles that the commentator who may or may not be real has been quoted in, including ‘When you walk together, you actually talk’: how daycationscan split-proof your relationships in the Guardian, albeit its Guardian Labs paid for content.

Here's the best bit:

Her thoughts are echoed by Barbara Santini, a psychologist specialising in relationships: “Walking together creates a rhythm that fosters synchrony (where you’re both in step), both physical and emotional. This shared pace naturally promotes non-verbal bonding, which is vital for emotional attunement. Additionally, the simplicity of walking allows couples to engage in unpressured dialogue, making it easier to address feelings, or simply enjoy each other’s company.”

Then there’s the sense of communion that comes from being together as you scale inclines, read maps and share sandwiches on windy summits.

Santini believes this is endlessly important for any relationship: “These shared achievements create lasting memories tied to positive emotions, cementing the relationship through mutual trust and accomplishment,” she says.

 It's bad enough hacks telling readers what someone believes, as if they can read other people's minds, but imagine credulously telling your readers what someone totally made-up believes.

Hello, it's me...after all these years

 Yes, it's been a while since I posted anything here. 

But since giving up paid employment to pursue my investigative journalism and creative fiction, I realised that a lot of the stuff I was banging on about all those years ago still applies - if anything, it's got worse.

Client journalism is as bad as it ever was, with many hacks not thinking twice before allowing the powerful to use anonymity to spread disinformation, or have a pop at their opponents through scripted self-serving quotes. Many even think it's ok to give 'sources' or 'friends' the right to reply.