Best Of

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the shadow Lord Chancellor.




Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick

The Reeves guide to conning the public:

1. Fake your CV
2. Tell working people you won’t raise their taxes
3. Squeeze them to the pips and give their money to your union paymasters

You can’t trust a word she says👇

https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1859298630512889988

Where's the lie?

Yep. Seems fair to me

Bruising, but that's politics

Also Reeves IS a ridiculously incompent wanker who lied on her CV and is barely qualified to be a backbench MP let alone Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's simply the case. Is Jenrick meant to pretend this isn't true?

It's also a matter of public record now because her LinkedIn page doesn't match the CV she gave to the Labour selection panel. She lied on her CV to get selected, there's now no disputing it so Jenrick is well within his rights to say that and force Labour into a response.

Yes, Jenrick is well within his rights. However, as for forcing Labour into a response, I'm not sure that Labour will give a flying fuck what a dodgy Tory MP tweets.

Lying did for Boris.

She holds one of the great offices of state.

As did Boris.

It's fraud. She lied on her CV and said she was an economist at a major UK bank, it turns out she was in charge of a customer complaints team. She cultivated this image that she was a serious economist and had real private sector experience which landed her the position of chancellor, it's completely undeserved.

I cannot believe she was in the customer complaints dept. If her education is as stated then no way is she in customer complaints.

My guess, looking at the declared facts, is that she knew that she wanted to stand for Parliament, the Bank has rules against it, and she found a middle management position in a bank office where she needed to be. Very sensible and she did join the Bank as an economist, so is responsible to say she was one once. She is in no way an expert, but then neither are most Chancellors.

But it means she does NOT have the experience of a senior national economist, that she claimed. It might not matter if she was Minister for Sports and Jazz Hands, but she is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the back of this, and she is also responsible for a Budget (as @MaxPB notes) which is looking increasingly terrible as the days go by, conjuring lower growth from higher taxes and borrowing (how do you even do that??) and deeply angering everyone from farmers to Big Retail

No one is happy with her. THAT is why she dyed her hair orange after 3 weeks in the job, she knows she is an impostor, and that was a bad case of Impostor Syndrome working through her microbrain, so she tried to disguise herself as someone else. Lesbian Worzel Gummidge. Didn't work

I can’t believe you lot have me defending her as I think she’s dreadful, but she probably understands economics better than most Chancellors I can remember. To the extent there is a lie, it was a trivial one.

It’s a political role. Her job is to spot the politics, like Osborne did. That’s why she’s crap - the political errors. The Budget process is an exercise in picking options from hundreds presented to you by officials, and avoiding the political bear traps.

BBC saying John Prescott has died.

I really didn’t like him in the lead up to 1997 and after but I find myself looking back with fondness at the old bugger as a lot more character with a good life experience pre politics than most of the current mob.

Somewhere I have a 1997 election pledge card signed by him and given out by him personally at a campaign stop in Loughborough.

Prescott was a flawed individual, as we all are, but was key to the New Labour project. Blairism can only go so far in its technocratic managerial approach, and Starmerism is a pale imitation of New Labour without the Prescott it needs. Much the same applies to Kamala and the Democrats.

There needs to be some irrational soul and passion alongside the pragmatism, and Precott embodied that in 1997. He was that most unusual thing, a Centre-Left Populist.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the shadow Lord Chancellor.




Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick

The Reeves guide to conning the public:

1. Fake your CV
2. Tell working people you won’t raise their taxes
3. Squeeze them to the pips and give their money to your union paymasters

You can’t trust a word she says👇

https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1859298630512889988

Where's the lie?

Yep. Seems fair to me

Bruising, but that's politics

Also Reeves IS a ridiculously incompent wanker who lied on her CV and is barely qualified to be a backbench MP let alone Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's simply the case. Is Jenrick meant to pretend this isn't true?

It's also a matter of public record now because her LinkedIn page doesn't match the CV she gave to the Labour selection panel. She lied on her CV to get selected, there's now no disputing it so Jenrick is well within his rights to say that and force Labour into a response.

Yes, Jenrick is well within his rights. However, as for forcing Labour into a response, I'm not sure that Labour will give a flying fuck what a dodgy Tory MP tweets.

Lying did for Boris.

She holds one of the great offices of state.

As did Boris.

It's fraud. She lied on her CV and said she was an economist at a major UK bank, it turns out she was in charge of a customer complaints team. She cultivated this image that she was a serious economist and had real private sector experience which landed her the position of chancellor, it's completely undeserved.

Come off it. I don’t think Starmer appointed her based on her LinkedIn profile or her CV!

She looks a prat for doing this, but it’s hardly a resigning matter. I think it was a bad Budget but she’ll get her SR. When that falls over, and it will, I expect she’ll go in the following reshuffle.

So you don't think that her bigging herself up as an economist for a major private sector UK bank helped her get the shadow chancellor gig when Labour were at their lowest ebb after the 2019 election? It's a view.

No. And nor would you if you were applying logic and rationality rather than partisan hate.

You don’t get appointed Shadow CX because of what you did for a few years before you were an MP. To suggest you do is just silly.

I yield to no one in my criticism of this Government, but based on facts rather than froth.

You do when that job was supposedly being an economist at a major bank and the job in question is being the chief economist of the country. It can't be because of any innate talent because she's fucking useless.

She isn’t chief economist of the country though? You have no idea what the Chancellor does do you?

Given his job, I have a vague sense that @MaxPB is acquainted with the daily role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

He works in Financial services doesn’t he? A tiny part of the portfolio which barely bothers CX. It’s like saying a footballer understands the role of Minister of Sport.

No, it's like saying a successful executive at a professional football club in English League One has no idea of the pressures and obligations surrounding the head of the FA

Eh? No it really isn’t. But since he understands and recognises my point above, I don’t really need to educate you.

Well I'll try and educate you, then

It means he understands the basic maths of football: crowds, TV, income, transfers, stars, merchandise. However he may not be totally au fait with the extra political role that someone like the head of the FA has to also perform, on TOP of the football maths

Nonetheless he has a basic but informed insight into the job of the FA's head, much more than the average dude from Newent

There ya go. Now you understand. You didn't even have to consult ChatGPT

Sigh….

Yes that’s why your example is silly. You’re implying that the knowledge required to be good at fund management and working with startups represents the majority, or even a decent chunk, of the issues you have to think about as CX.

It doesn’t.

Yes, it does

In an ideal world the job of COTE is simple: to get the economy purring. To get the economics right. Secondary to that - literally, secondary - is the politics. He/she has to be cognisant of politics but in a well-functioning government the politics should mainly be done by the PM, by the rest of the government, the spin doctors, the Civil Service. The COTE should be a crucial boffin in the backroom, or maybe the rhythm section, to the PM's lead vocalist

Probably the last time this system worked really well, in the UK, was Howe and Lawson under Thatcher. Then Clarke under Major. After that Brown under Blair.... but then issues arose...

Since then, nada