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.

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

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.

Fund management for a while but then I moved into startup funding and consulting. As you say I'm not sure it's that relevant other than understanding the basis of why her policies are shite. I still don't understand how she's managed to borrow £150bn extra and produce less growth than before, it implies the rest of her budget measures have hugely negative multipliers which makes her a bad chancellor.

Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7
Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1
Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1

Lead: 48,160

Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8
Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1
Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1

Lead: 51,386

Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0
Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8
Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2

Lead: 66,693

Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0
Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8
Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2

Lead 68,760

Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0
Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8
Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2

Lead 72,626.

Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.

Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0
Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8
Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2

Lead 72,736

Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.

Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1
Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7
Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3

Lead 79,267

Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press

Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.7 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,669,135 50.1
Kari Lake GOP 1,589,790 47.7
Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,337 2.3

Lead 79,345

Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.

Arizona Senate. Estimated 99 percent of votes have been counted.

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1
Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7
Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3

Lead 80,770

Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.

Wasn't this called, like, a week ago?

And the votes cast TWO Weeks ago?

a

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/20/covid-inquiry-set-cost-208m-most-expensive-british-history/

Almost a quarter of a billion quid spent on this "lessons will learnt" farce..🧐🥴

Well 300,000 people died, almost as many as died in WW2 so maybe it’s worth a go?
There are some very important lessons, which sadly, I doubt will really make changes. But it needed doing.

They could have investigated the obvious origin in the Wuhan lab, but when the great Michael Gove brought that up - and he is truly a great man, editor or politician - then he was very briskly hushed and told NOT to talk about it. Weird, that. Almost like they were all worried the lan origin might become obvously true after about two minutes of scrutiny, along with the fact that the science establishment in the UK conspired with their equivalents in the USA to cover up this fact, for at least a year

The origin is irrelevant to our response. Issues such as running very efficient hospitals (e.g. occupancy into the high 90’s) meant there was little surge capacity for instance. The sticks of PPE that never got rotated into use. Lots of lessons to be learned. Avoiding betting the house on the wrong mode of transmission. Taking other factors into account when considering imprisoning the country in their homes.
Sadly I doubt that we will implement much of the findings.

Ha no.

Those are the things that *won’t* get into the findings.

I actually asked - any discussion of the policy of all in on disposable PPE (standard policy in the Western World) was Out Of Scope.

Why? Because Russia has China to help. The biggest trading and manufacturing economy on the planet, right next door, and perhaps the single BIGGEST economy in the world (depending on GDP PPP arguments etc)

You are making the mistake of seeing China as Russia's ally. They're not. To them Putin is a idiot, but one who's stupidity serves China's purpose for the moment.

The war is useful to China for a variety of reasons, so Xi has been giving Russia some moderate help to keep the conflict rolling along. Mostly by selling them equipment, parts and raw material they can't get elsewhere because of sanctions. Help that, not coincidentally, makes China money.

That's as far as it goes. China will not sell Russia anything but the most primitive weapons, old Soviet era stuff it has lying about in warehouses going rusty. You will not see modern Chinese aircraft, tanks or missiles used by Russia, and certainly no Chinese soldiers. Xi does not want a direct conflict with the West until he's ready to jump for Taiwan.

Given how Russia's economy is cratering China would need to pump in incredible amounts of money, men and hardware to ensure Russia wins. But they're not. Compared to the support Ukraine is getting from the US and Europe, China's support for Russia barely exists. I see zero indications that will change.