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?

I mean it's short hand but, yes, I do know what the chancellor does, it's actually one of the reasons I prefer people who aren't formally educated as economists to do it, they tend to be bad at the job.

We've never had a chancellor trained in economics have we?
Actually I looked it up, apparently someone called Hugh Dalton was an economist and chancellor for a couple of years.

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.

They will care as polls show that half of their MPs - or more - are likely to lose at the next GE, unless this pathetic Labour government can actually do something. That's their careers going up in smoke

I read a report in the FT that said "senior people in Labour are resigned to this being a one term government". Quite a remarkable statement given their enormous majority, and the fact we are only half a year in

2029 can't come soon enough. Get rid of these economic vandals destroying businesses and jobs at the altar of the NHS. It's almost enough for me to consider a run at a seat, but then I think about the hassle of it all and decide it's not worth it.

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.

The Employer NI tax increase is completely insane - but their unwillingness to point out how insane the employee NI cuts made anything else impossibly.

We would be better off with 3p on Income Tax and a hack that kept WFA going for a bit (and yes I know I've said that a few times but come up with a better plan that could be implemented in April).

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

I'm (almost) unemployed these days...

Then you should do it. Go into politics

You have a good brain, you're politically astute, you're affluent, and you're articulate. Allez!

Britain NEEDS smart competent people like you - not these Labour fools - to go into parliament, You have real time career experience and you could surely land a nice safe Tory seat

Also 2028-9 is gonna be carnage for Labour. I genuinely believe they could lose half or 2/3 of their seats. They are clearly clueless and have no idea how to solve any of Britain's big ongoing problems. The Budget was final proof of that. They did zero thinking in opposition. They are like students, constantly calling wanky votes about Palestine

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.

On that, we agree.

Politically she has been foolish in that she’s spent political capital on things that raise trivial amounts of revenue (she and her spads should have spotted and rejected them).

More seriously, her general policy direction seems to have been “can we vaguely do something that sounds left wing, fling some cash at the NHS, and tax employers”. I don’t understand the thesis. I would have disagreed with a John McDonnell Budget but I reckon I’d have understood his intent. And as you say, she’s managed to spend cash and not even stoke an illusionary boom.

I think its time for realpolitik. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. A wider war where its chunks of Nato + Ukraine vs Russia could defeat Russia, but it seems very likely that Putin would push the button with his back against the wall.

Ukraine doesn't have to defeat Russia, it just has to hold on militarily until the Russian economy collapses. No country can sustain spending 40%+ of GDP on war, particularly not one under severe sanctions and with deep-seated economic issues even in peacetime.

The first signs are there now. Food prices jumping because farms cannot get labour or parts for the machines. An ever increasing percentage of the food that is grown never makes it to market because the railways have the same issues; no people, no spares, no new equipment. This is why Ukraine is expending so many of their drones hitting Russia's fuel infrastructure. Fuel shortages will dramatically these problems.

Right now Russia is Germany in late 1917. Still functioning, still with a powerful army in the field, but with the economic and logistical situation in terminal decline. The Germans knew for some time the Royal Navy's blockade of the North Sea would evidentially strangle them, hence the do-or-die gamble of throwing the entire High Seas fleet at the RN in 1916.

I remember many, many years ago reading an article written by a foreign journalist who was stationed in Berlin during the last months of the war. He went for a walk one day and recounted how all the restaurants he passed were closed, except one. He went in and looked at the menu, which contained only one meat dish; boiled crow.

Russia is at the very most a year and a half away from boiled crow.

But the analogy is entirely wrong

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)

China also has vast reserves of manpower and can chivvy tributary states into assisting Putin. NB North Korea suddenly coming up with 100,000 soldiers, what a coincidence

This changes the equation entirely. Xi Jinping has made it clear he won't let Russia lose or Putin fall. That's it. To borrow your allegory it's like Germany in World War 1 having the USA on its side, rather than opposing, only this time America is right next door to Berlin and Britain cannot blockade any of their trade

I agree with most of this. As I mentioned a few days ago, Hitler was not a nuclear dictator supported by another nuclear-armed dictator.

We need to think very carefully indeed, in this situation, before reaching for what can sometimes be tempting but ahistorical analogies.

But, if one is a nuclear-armed power, one absolutely cannot give way to threats from another nuclear-armed power. Otherwise, deterrence collapses.

I think its time for realpolitik. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. A wider war where its chunks of Nato + Ukraine vs Russia could defeat Russia, but it seems very likely that Putin would push the button with his back against the wall.

Ukraine doesn't have to defeat Russia, it just has to hold on militarily until the Russian economy collapses. No country can sustain spending 40%+ of GDP on war, particularly not one under severe sanctions and with deep-seated economic issues even in peacetime.

The first signs are there now. Food prices jumping because farms cannot get labour or parts for the machines. An ever increasing percentage of the food that is grown never makes it to market because the railways have the same issues; no people, no spares, no new equipment. This is why Ukraine is expending so many of their drones hitting Russia's fuel infrastructure. Fuel shortages will dramatically these problems.

Right now Russia is Germany in late 1917. Still functioning, still with a powerful army in the field, but with the economic and logistical situation in terminal decline. The Germans knew for some time the Royal Navy's blockade of the North Sea would evidentially strangle them, hence the do-or-die gamble of throwing the entire High Seas fleet at the RN in 1916.

I remember many, many years ago reading an article written by a foreign journalist who was stationed in Berlin during the last months of the war. He went for a walk one day and recounted how all the restaurants he passed were closed, except one. He went in and looked at the menu, which contained only one meat dish; boiled crow.

Russia is at the very most a year and a half away from boiled crow.

But the analogy is entirely wrong

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)

China also has vast reserves of manpower and can chivvy tributary states into assisting Putin. NB North Korea suddenly coming up with 100,000 soldiers, what a coincidence

This changes the equation entirely. Xi Jinping has made it clear he won't let Russia lose or Putin fall. That's it. To borrow your allegory it's like Germany in World War 1 having the USA on its side, rather than opposing, only this time America is right next door to Berlin and Britain cannot blockade any of their trade

I agree with most of this. As I mentioned a few days ago, Hitler was not a nuclear dictator supported by another nuclear-armed dictator.

We need to think very carefully indeed, in this situation, before reaching for what can sometimes be tempting but ahistorical analogies.

I think anyone using historical analogies should be forced to use only ones between 1AD to 1000AD, to screw over those whose only reference is WW2, and upper class Classics types.