Forum Topic

How's It Going Then Rache?

It's official... Rachel Reeves DID deliver the biggest tax-raising Budget on record: OBR watchdog's database shows Chancellor hiked the burden by £41.5bn - MORE than Norman Lamont's notorious 1993 raid.https://mol.im/a/14082155UK economy stalls: Slowdown fears as GDP goes into the red in September and ekes out just 0.1% growth over third quarter - with Budget tax hit still to come.https://mol.im/a/14085927A calamitous start from the Government that pre-election stressed it would not raise taxes for 'working people', which has now proven to be a big fat lie.😡Oh, and Rache, you had better stop spouting nonsense about 'black holes' because you clearly make up these figures as you go along.🤥Oh, and another thing Rache, all the doom and gloom pre-Budget rhetoric from you and himself 🤓 clearly spooked the financial markets, as shown by the slump in the economy.🤨Oh, and finally Rache, your latest slogan of growth growth growth has fallen flat after your punitive tax burdens on employers was announced. Thousands of SME businesses have already thrown in the towel and many others will not be able to expand or take on apprentices. Large businesses are pee'd off too but they will just pass on their extra costs to their customers, which means we will all have less money in our pockets to spend on goods and services. Not a recipe for growth, but very much for anti-growth.😖Job losses and price hikes inevitable, warn UK’s biggest firms in stark message to Rachel Reeves over Budget | The Independenthttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reeves-budget-business-starmer-tax-b2646944.html

Sue Hammond ● 41d38 Comments

Thanks Sue, for finding the letter. As usual my son also keeps me up to date. Rather worried for him and my grand children and letters being handed out again in Sweden.

Barbara Stevens ● 36d

Here is an alternative linkSometimes articles are available that are a few days old https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20241119/281784224633041

Ed Robinson ● 36d

Questions Are Being Asked

Sue Hammond ● 37d

Not being truthful on your CV (aka lying) is a serious matter and usually leads to dismissal in most organisations and rightly so. Rache has embellished her own CV to the point of lying about her previous job experience and has surely broken the ministerial code? She should be removed from her post by Starmer or do the honourable thing and step down.

Sue Hammond ● 37d

Rachel Reeves lied on her CV to get the job. So she doesn't have a brain.

Barbara Stevens ● 37d

Well, I'll just have to see what the Grauniad of Indy says😶

Michael Ixer ● 37d

G *or* I says

Michael Ixer ● 37d

'Well, it didn't let me in to see that link'.The start of a fascist take over methinks !

John Hawkes ● 37d

If you read the comments to the Mail+ article, you usually get the gist of what’s been said in the article behind the paywall.  That’s what I do, as I don’t want to pay to read.

Martine Guy ● 37d

Well, it didn't let me in to see that link.

Michael Ixer ● 37d

@MichaelThe DM online is free as you must already know or you wouldn't have been able to view it. The subscription is for Mail+ which is the enhanced weekend edition plus the magazine.

Sue Hammond ● 37d

''The Daily Heil seems to want one to sign up for a subscription! They must be joking!'It's available free on-line.If there is any subscription required it must be for more than their news reports or regular columnists.You should read it even if you disagree with its position.As I do with the Guardian."It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view".George Eliot

John Hawkes ● 37d

The Daily Heil seems to want one to sign up for a subscription! They must be joking!

Michael Ixer ● 37d

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14097163/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Trumps-putting-Masters-University-charge-tax-cuts-stuck-Hon-Member-Fantasy-Island.htmlYes I know - the Daily Heil !But it does make for an interesting and entertaining take on the professional and political background of our Chancellor.

John Hawkes ● 37d

It could just be a simple maths mistake."Rachel Reeves accused of exaggerating time spent working for Bank of EnglandChancellor told magazine she ‘spent a decade’ at the Bank but her online CV lists only six years there"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/rachel-reeves-accused-exaggerating-work-bank-of-england/

Ed Robinson ● 39d

Reeves finally finds a use for Lord Ali outfit.

Ed Robinson ● 39d

Another CV update coming??

Sue Hammond ● 39d

Of course,  before the election Labour supporters had a theory that Sunak called a snap election in the hope of losing.  He knew was the mess created over that last decade in courts, prisons, the NHS, enery, transport, post Brexit trade and finances etc and wanted to avoid the tough measures needed to resolve them that would make any party unpopular. As David says, it's the way the election went so live with it like we have to live with Brexit which, as the chairman of the Bank of England said, is the real economic issue. 

Michael Ixer ● 39d

"you wonder what on earth they have been doing for 14 years."Much of the time they were engaged in civil war against the Left, and "making themselves electable". They won. It is apparently what people wanted, according to polls and elections.

David Ainsworth ● 39d

Labour appear to believe that the solution to the country’s problems is to increase the size of the state and to pay for it by taxing private employers along with certain groups designated as ‘toffs’, such as non doms, farmers owning land above 100 acres and people who send their children to private schools.  It’s not socialism but statism, leavened by inverted snobbery, a recipe for economic stagnation.

Steven Rose ● 39d

Have we ever had a chancellor that was an economists?Many successful traders are not economists but they understand the principles of markets.Market confidence seems to be important here. Labour clearly understood the voter market and the impact on voter confidence that over egging of credentials would bring.However they seemed to have forgotten the principle that governments should govern above any party politics and hence more over egging of the black hole. Doubling down on the stupidity. Resulting in general loss of confidence in the UK's economic situation. Any growth has now gone.The growth strategy which people agreed  with to wider and lesser extents had been sacrificed for a cheap political point. A  Ratner mistake dragged out for months.Obviously the economic budget measures didn't help this either with again spin replacing practicalities and reality and more playing to the chosen crowd.

Ed Robinson ● 39d

So we can expect reshuffle after reshuffle while things get more expensive and more people end up unemployed.  Starmer already has no credibility in my opinion.  Who allowed these policies and thought it would be OK.The entire Cabinet is out of their depth and you wonder what on earth they have been doing for 14 years.  They appear to be so hungry to hold onto personal power they are prepared to let the whole country suffer.

Robert Wheeler ● 39d

If Rachel Reeves has little experience as an economist, Keir Starmer has none at all. So it is highly unlikely that he would have the knowledge or the confidence to reset the economy. He is completely out of his depth as Prime Minister,relying on others for virtually all policy decisions. But he not stupid. He knows  that if his government were to reverse the decisions on NI, IHT, independent schools etc, thry would be lose all credibility and he himself would be forced to resign.

Steven Rose ● 39d

If Reeves wasn’t an Economist she should not have claimed she was one on her CV which she has now had to alter.  Reeves is clearly academically bright but has no real understanding of how businesses in this country work.  If she did she would not proposed her attack on our farmers OAPs and employers.If you want growth you have to keep costs down and increase volume.  What Reeves has done in the latest budget is spook markets, raised costs and increased unemployment.  If Starmer had any balls he would reset things asap financially.

Robert Wheeler ● 39d

Hello Robert,I totally agree.  While she does have a degree in economics, her work experience is not compatible with an economist...  Hence the second paragraph of my previous message:- she graduated from Oxford with a PPE degree in 2000 and worked at the Bank of England; - she studied the Masters in Economics in 2003 and 2004;- she moved to Leeds in 2006 and worked HSBO;- she was elected MP for Leeds West in 2010.So, she had 6 years experience in the banking sector and 14 years so far as an MP....I would not say her experience as an economist is immense....

Ivonne Holliday ● 40d

I agree, Robert.  When I read about her being a Complaints Support Manager, I picture Rachel Reeves doing a similar type job to the people who work in our local bank branches helping people who need help with their banking.  Just because she has an Economics Degree, it doesn’t mean that she has ever worked as an economist. If the story is true, why isn’t it being covered on the news?  I found out about it on the internet.  Also if it is a lie, she should be denying it.

Martine Guy ● 40d

I think the point is that Reeves was never employed as an Economist.  She understands the theory to pass the exams but actually putting it into actual business practice is lacking apparently.Getting an Economics degree is the equivalent to getting a Medical degree.  A newly qualified doctor would not be let loose until they had a good number of extra years labelled as “professional training “.

Robert Wheeler ● 40d

According to Wikipedia Reeves does have a degree in Economics."....After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[10] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in June 2000.[11] She then from 2003 to 2004 studied for and obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[12] [13]Reeves's first job in September 2000 after graduating her first degree in PPE at Oxford was with the Bank of England.[14] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS. She was once interviewed for a job at Goldman Sachs but turned it down despite claiming that the job could have made her "a lot richer".[15]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves

Ivonne Holliday ● 40d

Did Guido Fawkes get his info. from the Kev Gillett post: ”Can my network pls share this factual story.  Back in 2009 Rt Hon Rachel Reeves worked 3 levels below me.  Just facts.  She was a Complaints Support. Manager at LBG/HBOS.  Not an economist. #factcheck”

Martine Guy ● 40d

Precisely.  Unfortunately lying is endemic in this Government.

Sue Hammond ● 40d

"How can you tell when the Chancellor is not telling the whole truth"?"When you see her lips moving" !

John Hawkes ● 40d

Was Rache Really An Economist? Guido Fawkes questions her claim:CHANCELLOR CAUGHT CHANGING LINKEDIN CV AFTER ‘ECONOMIST’ MYTH EXPOSEDGuido was watching Reeves’ Mansion Housespeech last night and noticed she limited her tenure as an “economist” to the short years she spent at the Bank of England only:“Before entering politics, I worked as an economist at the Bank of England.And then in financial services.”Funnily enough Reeves has also done a bit of retrospective digital editing. She has quietly changed her LinkedIn account’s CV…Gone is the Chancellor’s claim that she was an economist at the Bank of Scotland. She now just says she worked in “Retail Banking” at HBOS. As Guido revealed last month Reeves actually worked in a small complaints team within HBOS which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. Just in case you thought her experience as an “economist” justified that budget…UPDATE: A Treasury source admits the LinkedIn was edited: “She worked in retail banking covering various areas drawing on her background as an economist. Her LinkedIn has been updated to reflect that.“https://order-order.com/2024/11/15/chancellor-caught-changing-linkedin-cv-after-economist-myth-exposed/

Sue Hammond ● 40d

Another pre-election promise broken:😡https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AwFvKghJz/?mibextid=UalRPS

Sue Hammond ● 40d

It is beyond absolute madness!For a party proclaiming they want growth (did not Liz Truss say something similar?), taxing the wealth creators is mind-blogging ludicrous!Then comes suggestion to put all public pension funds under one wing plus the encouragement for the City to make high risk investments.... Frightening does not even describe it.

Ivonne Holliday ● 41d

It is their turn to wreck the economy after all.The WFA was purely political and they talked the economy down to defend a bad decision.Hiking employment taxes when we want to get more people into work is just madness. The welfare bill will go up along with unemployment. They should be called the Labour Tax party!

Ed Robinson ● 41d

Hello Sue,You will probably be surprised but I agree with you.A horrific start before the budget and now, after the Mansion House speech, it is heads in hands.It is unforgivable, asking the City to invest in high risk investments??? I wonder if we are facing a second Maxwell....  Heart breaking!

Ivonne Holliday ● 41d

I feel sorry for the farmers, you couldn’t pay me to do their job.  This is a big mistake by the government and shows their lack of understanding of the countryside.

Martine Guy ● 41d

Does anybody on here think Starmer’s doing a good job with this cabinet please let me know.  Starmer and Reeves spent weeks talking the economy down, surprise surprise it went down.  Reeves is insane taking on the Winter Fuel Allowance to OAPs, now the farmers, COP where the main players didn’t bother to attend.  Which bit of common sense shows you need a jet to attend a climate change conference.  They never had an adult plan for Government. I am sorry but l think Starmer will go down as the worse PM we have had.  I just dread to think what his legacy is. 

Robert Wheeler ● 41d