Forum Topic

Starmer had very little policies including economic (obviously excluding the ones he dropped after becoming leader) before the election.With so little policies the left wing media turned politics into religion concentrating and beefing up the personalities. People just needed to have faith and vote for them. Wait for the manifesto some on the forum said.Of course you may not be able to publish exact figures due to changes in the economy before any election but general policy should have been discussed and debated.They had however spent along time persuading big business that they were capable people.Growth was however one of the sound bites  mentioned. You don't need to be an economist to know the cocktail of policies she brought forward at the budget would kill growth.That an employment tax would lead to less new employees being taken on and hence continued higher welfare.Confidence is vital to businesses investing. Again needed for growth. Even with the unexpected tax increases they continued to burn confidence to defend their political decision of how to address the so-called black whole (which has independently found to be less that Labour stated)Sum up they made two political mistakes.1) believing the winter fuel allowance cut would hurt the Conservatives. (Purely political & unnecessary out of Osbourne playbook)2) burned confidence for months defending the cut and exaggerating and highlighting the hole in the Government finances which fulled speculated about further taxes.Sure I sell you this boat it has huge hole and many other holes that we may charge you more for later. What no buyers???

Ed Robinson ● 60d

It is true, Jonathan, that Rachel Reeves has a BA and and an MA economics. But these qualifications don’t mean that she is equipped to be in control of the country’s finances. She worked for six years at the Bank of England in a junior capacity. She then ran a Customer Relations department for four years at the retail arm of HBOS. She has never run a business nor even filled a senior position in a business, yet somehow she has become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Admittedly it is one of the peculiarities of parliamentary democracy that MPs without relevant experience are promoted to ministerial positions where they have to learn their brief. But I think the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer is too important to learn on the job.In the short time she has been in post Rachel Reeves has made several serious mistakes. The first was to give the doctors and train drivers inflationary pay awards on the grounds that it was cheaper to pay them off than bear the cost of the strikes. This is an invitation to other public sector workers to submit inflationary pay claims with the threat of strike action if the claims are not met. The second mistake was to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners at the behest of Treasury officials who dislike universal benefits. I imagine that on salaries of £200k these officials will have no problem in heating their own homes adequately this winter. The third mistake, probably the most serious, was to increase employers’ NI contributions, a tax on jobs which has already slowed growth. I suspect that even Rachel Reeves knows that she is not up to the job. Her continual references to the fact that she is the first female Chancellor suggest that she is seeking plaudits for the mere fact of being a woman rather than for anything she can bring to the office. Her repeated mantra that it is all the fault of the ‘black hole’ left by the Tories is starting to wear thin as an excuse.

Steven Rose ● 61d