Best Of

Afternoon all

It's worth re-stating, amongst all the wailings of those with buyers' remorse from their folly of voting Labour just 20 weeks ago today, most British Governments which fail do so because of the failure of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor or, more accurately, the tension between the Prime Minister's office and HM Treasury.

Chancellors are either technocrats with financial management skills and no political ambition (Lawson and Darling would be good examples) or politicians with no financial management skills and political ambition (you can all think of examples). Beyond that, there is the degree to which the Chancellor becomes the "prisoner" of the Treasury or whether they retain a scintilla of independent thought.

The other role of the Chancellor is to be a human shield for the occupant of No.10. Since MacMillan sacked Birch as part of the "little local difficulties" in 1958, it's been almost de rigueur for Prime Ministers in political trouble to get rid of their Chancellor in an attempt to appease the angry voters - Selwyn Lloyd, James Callaghan, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont to name but four but others have been forced out.

Chancellors are rarely popular and can be cast aside with a degree of aplomb especially if not perceived to be a political rival - is Reeves a serious alternative to Starmer, was Annelise Dodds? When (not if) Reeves is removed that will be a sign the sense of crisis has reached the Prime Minister's doorstep.

So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......

Where's the scoop?

She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.

Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.

First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?

Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?

It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).

The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.

She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.

Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?

Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.

Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.

It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.

Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.

Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.

I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.

She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.

Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.

Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.

I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court

The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.

From £140bn a year to £180bn before last budget.

Perhaps that was the real big lie of Brexit - that the NHS could be fixed with more money.