[Andy McDandy]

A visit from the PM brings with it the media. An employee cussing him doesn't do much for the organisation's image. Bringing the firm into disrepute, HR normally call it.

[kreuzberger]

I feel a certain affinity with Starmer. On the maternal side, my grandfather was a tool-maker, as was a son of his who became CFO at an A-list British business. Serious stuff and a few quid were made along the way. Of course, there were a few genetically questionable weirdos on the family hard shoulder who voted Tory and engaged in abuse, but they are few and far between.

My father's side was infantry and staunch Labour. OK, my father, himself, lurched off to the racist right in his later years, but there was also a burning ethos of working class solidarity and a societal duty to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those less fortunate than those who could knock in a decent shift.

As Starmer doubles down on the most vulnerable in society, I am left questioning my own judgement. I assumed that he would have red-lines.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The whole package sounds like it's split into very contrasting treatment for health benefits and out of work benefits. Not that any benefit is generous but the out of work benefits will be increased above inflation. Costs are recouped from restricting PIP. Though the numbers on PIP have gone up a lot, it's not going to be feasible to save £5bn a year from this group. Barely anyone will notice the out of work benefits going up anyway, so you'll get no credit for that. Better not to increase that at all, and to cut less from the PIP.

Better still, don't do anything now. Forget all the "Reeves Headroom" stuff until the year end.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Good point made by the IFS here.

The other major saving – from tightening PIP eligibility criteria – is by comparison relatively uncertain. The impact of reforms to assessment criteria is more difficult to predict than the effect of changes in amounts paid, as the way claimants approach the assessment is likely to change in response. Previous governments attempting similar reforms have found that they have saved much less than hoped.

So people who on the face of it will lose PIP might end up keeping it. Government gets all the stick for cruelty (rightly) and ends up paying anyway. I think this ought to have been left well alone. However "brave" they think they are.

[The Weeping Angel]

The whole package sounds like it's split into very contrasting treatment for health benefits and out of work benefits. Not that any benefit is generous but the out of work benefits will be increased above inflation. Costs are recouped from restricting PIP. Though the numbers on PIP have gone up a lot, it's not going to be feasible to save £5bn a year from this group. Barely anyone will notice the out of work benefits going up anyway, so you'll get no credit for that. Better not to increase that at all, and to cut less from the PIP.

Better still, don't do anything now. Forget all the "Reeves Headroom" stuff until the year end.

They're some decent ideas in the package but the stuff about PIP has overshadowed that.