This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
It's a free vote. There is no government line on it, apart from promising a vote on it.
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
You can';t include "owning a house" as capital, as you can't sell it and live off the income. But if you rent out a room(s), that's different.
Of course you can sell it and live off the income. But as a house owner-occupier part of your income in the broadest sense, is the implied rent you derive from the property. If you didn't own it you would be paying rent to the owner
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
Possibly a Ratner moment.
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
Possibly a Ratner moment.
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
[Though it isn't terrible for 'girls' chess at the time]
Considering the best women in the recent US chess champs are around 23-2400, like you say 18-1900 ain't bad for a young un. Much better than the average player. She probably did top school/county leagues.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10] Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
Her MSc is in Economics from the LSE, so reasonable to describe herself as an economist, and her jobs in the BoE were in Economic posts, and that is the accreditation on her published papers.
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
Possibly a Ratner moment.
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
It is not a Ratner moment.
No it is not a Ratner moment
Just another example of Starmer’s inability to deal with aggressive journalists questions
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
Possibly a Ratner moment.
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
It is not a Ratner moment.
No it is not a Ratner moment
Just another example of Starmer’s inability to deal with aggressive journalists questions
As Rosie Duffield said in her Telegraph interview, Starmer is terrible at handling tough/critical questions as he sees it as a personal affront. This will not end well. He’s being found out very quickly
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Which says: Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition." The clear implication is that all their income is derived from assets. If, say, half of their income was derived from doing paid work, then for that part of their life they would be classified as a working person (and their taxes won't be hiked).
Anyway, it's great to see the shock and horror that a Labour government, a Labour government, may be on the side of working people rather than the asset rich. Who'd have thought it?
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10] Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
What is footnote [11]?
Some article from Allegra Stratton in 2009 apparently.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
It's been a PB truism for ages that taxes are too high on employment income and too low on asset income, and that it needs rebalancing.
Surely we should be delighted that Keir Starmer has joined the PB Tory herd?
The faux outrage over this is such cobblers.
There is something in this.
I think this Government is 90% shambles, 9% totalitarian malice, but the 1% they do right I'm prepared to acknowledge.
For example, though I haven't read the details, I'm keeping an open mind on capital gains changes. The UK business cycle is all about 'Get it big enough to attract an American corporation - sell - move to Monaco' and that's corrosive to our economy. I'm prepared for capital gains to be a bit more challenging to cash in on and making money by sticking with the business to be a bit more tempting, and I'm not too bothered by a lot of businesses initially not being delighted about it.
Of course I have no idea whether that's what the new policy achieves...
Sam Cam's sister Emily Sheffield is on BBC QT now.
She joined the board of Koovs, the Indian fashion website and retailer, in 2014. The firm was established by Labour Party peer Lord Alli after he left ASOS plc.[10] It went into administration in December 2019.[11][12]
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Bethesda made game? 5 years time and 1000 patches, they might have fixed some of the bugs.
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
Possibly a Ratner moment.
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
The gilt yields thing is obviously a trope from somewhere, I’ve seen it twice today from different posters.
BoE base rate in September 2022 2.25%, BoE base rate now 5.00%.
Yields therefore had a 2% spread on base rates in 2022 and a negative spread now.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
[Though it isn't terrible for 'girls' chess at the time]
That might be a pretty average club player to you, but that is pretty strong for junior girl.
My daughter played in the US Girls Chess Championship in Chicago, and she's 1,100 rated and she won two matches, drew one, and lost four. 1,100 is not great at all, but it was clearly sufficient to get her into a surprsingly middle ranking position.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
It wasn’t a promising or reassuring moment, TBH, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her crucial first 100 days, dealing with the gilt market and meeting OECD finance ministers, decided to dye her hair orange - making her look like “a lesbian Worzel Gummidge”. And then a fortnight later she dyed it back to black
Imagine if in his first 100 days after the 1945 General Election, Clement Attlee suddenly started wearing an Afro wig, and blue lipstick, and then ten days later stopped doing that
Would that have struck Britain’s allies and enemies as a sign of governmental confidence?
It's been a PB truism for ages that taxes are too high on employment income and too low on asset income, and that it needs rebalancing.
Surely we should be delighted that Keir Starmer has joined the PB Tory herd?
The faux outrage over this is such cobblers.
There is something in this.
I think this Government is 90% shambles, 9% totalitarian malice, but the 1% they do right I'm prepared to acknowledge.
For example, though I haven't read the details, I'm keeping an open mind on capital gains changes. The UK business cycle is all about 'Get it big enough to attract an American corporation - sell - move to Monaco' and that's corrosive to our economy. I'm prepared for capital gains to be a bit more challenging to cash in on and making money by sticking with the business to be a bit more tempting, and I'm not too bothered by a lot of businesses initially not being delighted about it.
Of course I have no idea whether that's what the new policy achieves...
Right, and we also have no idea yet what the detail is behind this inane quibbling over the definition of a "working person", that would open the way for increasing taxes without breaking a manifesto commitment. I've been bracing myself for crushing disappointment from the budget for a while now (the wait has been interminable) and we're unlikely to see the cuts in taxes on income from employment that most on PB.com would like to see as the counterpart to an increase in taxes on assets. But, still, the poorly-communicated signal from Starmer on this is the right one: tax assets instead of employment.
But there are some posters who would criticise Starmer for breathing. Their criticism when Starmer does fuck up would have more force if they weren't simply criticising him all the time. It's just like the posters who could never bring themselves to give Boris Johnson any credit.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
It wasn’t a promising or reassuring moment, TBH, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her crucial first 100 days, dealing with the gilt market and meeting OECD finance ministers, decided to dye her hair orange - making her look like “a lesbian Worzel Gummidge”. And then a fortnight later she dyed it back to black
Imagine if in his first 100 days after the 1945 General Election, Clement Attlee suddenly started wearing an Afro wig, and blue lipstick, and then ten days later stopped doing that
Would that have struck Britain’s allies and enemies as a sign of governmental confidence?
No idea. But now I need to rewatch Sir Henry at Rawlinson End.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so I
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
I did respond on the thread to you and said I had only read the post and had not read the thread
I did not call you out it was @Leon my criticism was directed to and sorry if there was a misunderstanding
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
Are you up early or about to go to bed very late?
Enjoy your Rice and Miso breakfast.
Seriously, you just wrote THIS
“While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.”
Give your head a wobble. It shouldn’t be hard, it’s probably quite small and mounted on a spring
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
So, an Economist with a background in the Red Wall.
Just what we need, rather than a background in some dodgy hedge fund.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
I don’t recall Ken Clarke dyeing his hair turquoise-green for a week, as he wrestled with the fallout from the ERM debacle
Well, I've seen parties come from no candidate even standing to then win the next time, so they should not rule themselves out for the next election there.
@Mexicanpete it's time to put a vote on SKS resigning next week, currygate could not beat him, nor Swiftgate but working-person-gate, we finally have a winner.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
Listen to yourself, you dribbling fuckwit
Seriously, just reread what you wrote
Was I talking to you? No, now go down for that authentic breakfast experience. You can report back later.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Bethesda made game? 5 years time and 1000 patches, they might have fixed some of the bugs.
Whilst until recently people have seemed charmed by the wonkiness of most Bethesda games, I've never understood why they don't just hire some of the people who inevitably release major fan bug fixes and patches on day two.
I get modders and the like do it for free so why spend when you don't have to, but it would cut down on some of the most egregious first day errors (even in this patch heavy day and age).
I've just started replayinhg Skyrim for the first time in 6 years - still entertains.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
Are you up early or about to go to bed very late?
Enjoy your Rice and Miso breakfast.
Seriously, you just wrote THIS
“While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.”
Give your head a wobble. It shouldn’t be hard, it’s probably quite small and mounted on a spring
I'm blaming autocorrect for the missing apostrophe and "e".
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
Listen to yourself, you dribbling fuckwit
Seriously, just reread what you wrote
Was I talking to you? No, now go down for that authentic breakfast experience. You can report back later.
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Dura Ace whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Luckyguy who was disrespectful in the OTHER thread to TimS for being disrespectful to a great extent in that thread to the person he was severely disrespectful to and that was before the disrespectfulness got totally out of hand and I pooed myself? A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
@Mexicanpete it's time to put a vote on SKS resigning next week, currygate could not beat him, nor Swiftgate but working-person-gate, we finally have a winner.
I and many others are very happy to see Starmer as PM as he seems to be finding it extremely hard even to be more popular than Sunak
Sam Cam's sister Emily Sheffield is on BBC QT now.
She joined the board of Koovs, the Indian fashion website and retailer, in 2014. The firm was established by Labour Party peer Lord Alli after he left ASOS plc.[10] It went into administration in December 2019.[11][12]
This guy gets everywhere, no wonder he was made a peer!
Actually I don't know why he was made a peer, but it happening in someone's thirties is always a bit suspicious. Not that people of that age might not make great peers, just that the very process of appointment would tend toward older people who have moved in the right circles for decades.
This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
It's a free vote. There is no government line on it, apart from promising a vote on it.
You mean Simon Case displayed poor judgement by his intervention? So out of character.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
I very much doubt the public will
You have been corrected by several posters over the Sky interview. This is Currygate all over again.
You think so
But then you would anyway
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
Listen to yourself, you dribbling fuckwit
Seriously, just reread what you wrote
Was I talking to you? No, now go down for that authentic breakfast experience. You can report back later.
While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Dura Ace whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Luckyguy who was disrespectful in the OTHER thread to TimS for being disrespectful to a great extent in that thread to the person he was severely disrespectful to and that was before the disrespectfulness got totally out of hand and I pooed myself? A simple apology will be fine.Thanks.
I can recoment "Trump diapers" for your condition.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Has she told Hamas?
God always puts in exceptions. And where he/she/it doesn't, adherents do manage to find a way.
Sir Keir said he believed a working person was somebody who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque" but they did not have the ability to "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
I find very little to disagree with. If your income (primarily) derives from assets or shares, you aren't by any reasonable, rational definition "working". Frankly I can't see why these are treated differently anyway.
And I say this as somebody who is going to pay more tax as a result. I consider myself working as my income doesn't primarily come from these sources but if that changed, I would not be.
Tax me more Keir, I back you 100% on this. Stay away from Taylor Swift though, always thought she was mid.
I've just driven from Bristol to Cambridge. Found myself on the A421 near Milton Keynes. I hesitate to write the end of this sentence as it reads as completely implausible even to my own eyes , but either I have just emerged from a fever dream or for about 40 minutes the A421 had more roundabouts than miles on it.
It took about 20 roundabouts in a row, with less than a mile between each one, for me to twig that something was wrong with the world.
About 10 roundabouts later (still not a single roundabout-free mile) I felt like one of those school shooters in the USA, driven mad by the unfairness of it all, anti-roundabout manifesto ready to be posted to Telegram as I prepared to plough straight over the infernal things, chevron signs be damned.
Thankfully, at that point, a blessed dual carriageway appeared.
Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
Sharing in leadership of the West. For example Starmer deferred to Biden on using British weapons against Russia. If that was his decision he should have been informing Biden, not asking permission.
Sure, but come on, we all know which side the bread is buttered. Though it is not the done thing to admit it.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Bethesda made game? 5 years time and 1000 patches, they might have fixed some of the bugs.
Whilst until recently people have seemed charmed by the wonkiness of most Bethesda games, I've never understood why they don't just hire some of the people who inevitably release major fan bug fixes and patches on day two.
I get modders and the like do it for free so why spend when you don't have to, but it would cut down on some of the most egregious first day errors (even in this patch heavy day and age).
I've just started replayinhg Skyrim for the first time in 6 years - still entertains.
If you haven't yet, the Fallout London mod for FO4 is excellent (and free). Not quite New Vegas, but definitely more like a full game than a DLC. It even has the traffic warden from Threads!
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
Fair point. In my head I was going through previous Labour chancellors: Darling (good), Brown (hugely, hugely overrated in my view but undeniably knew his stuff), Healy (very good)... But maybe they all had non-chancellory backgrounds too.
Reeves just seems so... lightweight by comparison.
As we edge closer to the 2025 local elections, many shire council elected members are furiously tabulating by-election results since the GE to see if Labour/LD inroads are being blunted.
I've just driven from Bristol to Cambridge. Found myself on the A421 near Milton Keynes. I hesitate to write the end of this sentence as it reads as completely implausible even to my own eyes , but either I have just emerged from a fever dream or for about 40 minutes the A421 had more roundabouts than miles on it.
It took about 20 roundabouts in a row, with less than a mile between each one, for me to twig that something was wrong with the world.
About 10 roundabouts later (still not a single roundabout-free mile) I felt like one of those school shooters in the USA, driven mad by the unfairness of it all, anti-roundabout manifesto ready to be posted to Telegram as I prepared to plough straight over the infernal things, chevron signs be damned.
Thankfully, at that point, a blessed dual carriageway appeared.
On Kefalonia they have three roundabouts on the island, and in quick succession. One is the British style give way on entry whilst the other two are the French, stop in the middle style.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Guido can’t find any evidence and there is none in that wiki citation
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
I am quite often reminded of NPC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character) when I hear Labour front-benchers interviewed. It feels a little like the player isn't asking the question they were supposed to and they just error-out. The good ones might back-and-forth a little into an invisible barrier to try and readjust.
Bethesda made game? 5 years time and 1000 patches, they might have fixed some of the bugs.
Whilst until recently people have seemed charmed by the wonkiness of most Bethesda games, I've never understood why they don't just hire some of the people who inevitably release major fan bug fixes and patches on day two.
I get modders and the like do it for free so why spend when you don't have to, but it would cut down on some of the most egregious first day errors (even in this patch heavy day and age).
I've just started replayinhg Skyrim for the first time in 6 years - still entertains.
If you haven't yet, the Fallout London mod for FO4 is excellent (and free). Not quite New Vegas, but definitely more like a full game than a DLC. It even has the traffic warden from Threads!
Sounds good! I'm on a bit of a Bethesda nostalgia run as I've gone through Fallout 3 and now going through Skyrim, so it will be some time before I get back round to 4, with NV still to come.
(One day I will play Oblivion, which I do own, and no doubt be very disappointed)
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I do like the mix of voteshare for the LDs when standing if previously not in a seat (at least at most recent election). It really is all or nothing with them when that happens.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
Fair point. In my head I was going through previous Labour chancellors: Darling (good), Brown (hugely, hugely overrated in my view but undeniably knew his stuff), Healy (very good)... But maybe they all had non-chancellory backgrounds too.
Reeves just seems so... lightweight by comparison.
Is there something Reeves has in common with Kamala (who you also don't rate) that Darling, Brown and Healy don't? I'll have a think.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
Wow. I know the Old Dean very well. The LDs have never won it. It should be Labour as it is an old council estate and some of it is pretty rough, but the Conservatives have often won it. It is always a Lab/Con fight. The LDs have done well in Surrey Heath but that is literally the most difficult ward for them to win.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
Fair point. In my head I was going through previous Labour chancellors: Darling (good), Brown (hugely, hugely overrated in my view but undeniably knew his stuff), Healy (very good)... But maybe they all had non-chancellory backgrounds too.
Reeves just seems so... lightweight by comparison.
I've never met Reeves but I know people in the markets who know her well and rate her.
Sir Keir said he believed a working person was somebody who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque" but they did not have the ability to "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
I find very little to disagree with. If your income (primarily) derives from assets or shares, you aren't by any reasonable, rational definition "working". Frankly I can't see why these are treated differently anyway.
And I say this as somebody who is going to pay more tax as a result. I consider myself working as my income doesn't primarily come from these sources but if that changed, I would not be.
Tax me more Keir, I back you 100% on this. Stay away from Taylor Swift though, always thought she was mid.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I've just driven from Bristol to Cambridge. Found myself on the A421 near Milton Keynes. I hesitate to write the end of this sentence as it reads as completely implausible even to my own eyes , but either I have just emerged from a fever dream or for about 40 minutes the A421 had more roundabouts than miles on it.
It took about 20 roundabouts in a row, with less than a mile between each one, for me to twig that something was wrong with the world.
About 10 roundabouts later (still not a single roundabout-free mile) I felt like one of those school shooters in the USA, driven mad by the unfairness of it all, anti-roundabout manifesto ready to be posted to Telegram as I prepared to plough straight over the infernal things, chevron signs be damned.
Thankfully, at that point, a blessed dual carriageway appeared.
There might be something in this.
The Calder Road roundabouts in the small hours as you approach Saughton Prison has the same effect on me.
Sir Keir said he believed a working person was somebody who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque" but they did not have the ability to "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
I find very little to disagree with. If your income (primarily) derives from assets or shares, you aren't by any reasonable, rational definition "working". Frankly I can't see why these are treated differently anyway.
And I say this as somebody who is going to pay more tax as a result. I consider myself working as my income doesn't primarily come from these sources but if that changed, I would not be.
Tax me more Keir, I back you 100% on this. Stay away from Taylor Swift though, always thought she was mid.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
Does anyone think that the government's new Commission, or whatever it's called, to recover money from "fraudulent" PPE deals will actually work?
I'm quite sure that it'll cost more than it will earn from its endeavours
Perhaps it won't get the money back, but it will make the fraudsters, scammers and their friends in the last government keep their heads down.
We don't usually expect to make a profit by punishing wrong doers. We do it to prevent further abuses.
You mean like doctor banhammers where the only way I can get medication even though I know what it is and I need it refilled about once a year is to register with so useless idiot I will never see and give him a payoff far exceeding the cost of my 1 asthma inhaler a year?
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
The desire line worn into the grass to the right of the barriers is the perfect the critique of the whole arrangement.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
PB's MattW is an energetic campaigner on this very issue.
Comments
I see 30 year Gilts are trading with higher yields than after the Mini Budget.
What are the odds of Reeves crashing the economy in the same week that Starmer insults millions of middle class Brits....!
I mean, she’s obviously quite bright and probably a nice person. But she looks way out of her depth already
In fact this is true all of them. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves - they all look hopelessly out of their depth, like some mediocre 3rd division player who got wrongly transferred to Manchester City because the talent spotter wrote the wrong name down
Now they stand there on the pitch, nervously avoiding the ball
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rt-hon-rachel-reeves-535713240?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
Just another example of Starmer’s inability to deal with aggressive journalists questions
Surely we should be delighted that Keir Starmer has joined the PB Tory herd?
The faux outrage over this is such cobblers.
But then you would anyway
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The clear implication is that all their income is derived from assets. If, say, half of their income was derived from doing paid work, then for that part of their life they would be classified as a working person (and their taxes won't be hiked).
Anyway, it's great to see the shock and horror that a Labour government, a Labour government, may be on the side of working people rather than the asset rich. Who'd have thought it?
And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was.
And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
I think this Government is 90% shambles, 9% totalitarian malice, but the 1% they do right I'm prepared to acknowledge.
For example, though I haven't read the details, I'm keeping an open mind on capital gains changes. The UK business cycle is all about 'Get it big enough to attract an American corporation - sell - move to Monaco' and that's corrosive to our economy. I'm prepared for capital gains to be a bit more challenging to cash in on and making money by sticking with the business to be a bit more tempting, and I'm not too bothered by a lot of businesses initially not being delighted about it.
Of course I have no idea whether that's what the new policy achieves...
She joined the board of Koovs, the Indian fashion website and retailer, in 2014. The firm was established by Labour Party peer Lord Alli after he left ASOS plc.[10] It went into administration in December 2019.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Sheffield
Perfect
BoE base rate in September 2022 2.25%, BoE base rate now 5.00%.
Yields therefore had a 2% spread on base rates in 2022 and a negative spread now.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/what-rachel-reeves-learnt-from-witnessing-the-financial-crisis-unfold-in-halifax-3491160
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
My daughter played in the US Girls Chess Championship in Chicago, and she's 1,100 rated and she won two matches, drew one, and lost four. 1,100 is not great at all, but it was clearly sufficient to get her into a surprsingly middle ranking position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Ww6p7W8iv7U
Imagine if in his first 100 days after the 1945 General Election, Clement Attlee suddenly started wearing an Afro wig, and blue lipstick, and then ten days later stopped doing that
Would that have struck Britain’s allies and enemies as a sign of governmental confidence?
But there are some posters who would criticise Starmer for breathing. Their criticism when Starmer does fuck up would have more force if they weren't simply criticising him all the time. It's just like the posters who could never bring themselves to give Boris Johnson any credit.
I did not call you out it was @Leon my criticism was directed to and sorry if there was a misunderstanding
Seriously, just reread what you wrote
Enjoy your Rice and Miso breakfast.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
“While your on, have you revisited the thread where you called me out for being disrespectful to Leon whilst responding to him on that thread for having been disrespectful in the extreme to Southam. A simple apology will be fine.”
Give your head a wobble. It shouldn’t be hard, it’s probably quite small and mounted on a spring
Just what we need, rather than a background in some dodgy hedge fund.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
I get modders and the like do it for free so why spend when you don't have to, but it would cut down on some of the most egregious first day errors (even in this patch heavy day and age).
I've just started replayinhg Skyrim for the first time in 6 years - still entertains.
Actually I don't know why he was made a peer, but it happening in someone's thirties is always a bit suspicious. Not that people of that age might not make great peers, just that the very process of appointment would tend toward older people who have moved in the right circles for decades.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1849578941821989156?t=8Z71w7R8M82WUyqyryhiRA&s=19
Con gain from Lab
Con - 295 - 25.9%
Ind - 221 - 19.4%
Ref UK - 218 - 19.2%
Lab - 212 - 18.6%
PC - 169 - 14.9%
LD - 23 - 2.0%
No swing data, annoyingly. But I’m guessing Lab are down a lot and Con probably only up a bit or flat, with big rises for Independents and Reform.
Ding ding ding!
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
I find very little to disagree with. If your income (primarily) derives from assets or shares, you aren't by any reasonable, rational definition "working". Frankly I can't see why these are treated differently anyway.
And I say this as somebody who is going to pay more tax as a result. I consider myself working as my income doesn't primarily come from these sources but if that changed, I would not be.
Tax me more Keir, I back you 100% on this. Stay away from Taylor Swift though, always thought she was mid.
I've just driven from Bristol to Cambridge. Found myself on the A421 near Milton Keynes. I hesitate to write the end of this sentence as it reads as completely implausible even to my own eyes , but either I have just emerged from a fever dream or for about 40 minutes the A421 had more roundabouts than miles on it.
It took about 20 roundabouts in a row, with less than a mile between each one, for me to twig that something was wrong with the world.
About 10 roundabouts later (still not a single roundabout-free mile) I felt like one of those school shooters in the USA, driven mad by the unfairness of it all, anti-roundabout manifesto ready to be posted to Telegram as I prepared to plough straight over the infernal things, chevron signs be damned.
Thankfully, at that point, a blessed dual carriageway appeared.
🔶 LDM: 44.7% (New)
🌳 CON: 31.6% (-27.3)
➡️ RFM: 12.4% (New)
🌹 LAB: 10.9% (-30.2)
🙋 IND: 0.5% (New)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Changes w/ 2023.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1849580214952611939
Whomp whomp
Bless you, PB.
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
Reeves just seems so... lightweight by comparison.
(One day I will play Oblivion, which I do own, and no doubt be very disappointed)
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
And LD and Ref didn't stand last time. Hard to draw too many conclusions.
“To my mind, supermarket tannoy announcements have really gone downhill these last few years”
A PB-er actually wrote that. In sincerity. And then continued in the same vein for several paragraphs
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1849583675639300136?t=FEZkYuSmPzJkRQsl2wm8yA&s=19
The Labour vote is imploding, which is what we should expect looking at Starmer’s dire personal polling
The Calder Road roundabouts in the small hours as you approach Saughton Prison has the same effect on me.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
https://www.holdsworthhouse.co.uk/events-at-the-piece-hall-halifax-in-2024/#piecehallbands
You and @cookie and others are right to complain that I barely know a very significant corner of my own country
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
That is 4 gains in 3 weeks
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1849587522164187296?t=NITUbbxMkRjiAokqpFdtlA&s=19
Monmouthshire
Denbighshire
South Ribble