It was interesting on the Today programme yesterday where the Labour minister they were interviewing spewed out the Reeves defence which itself was bs, claiming that the Head of HR from HBOS had said that any investigation would have crossed her desk and didn’t so nothing to see here.
This defence was then torn apart by the bbc journo immediately after, wasn’t head of HBOS HR, they wouldn’t have seen the investigation anyway unless there was action taken, leaving mutually would spike any investigation etc et.
The takedown of the defence was quite simple and brutal and I thought that would be that until the headlines followed and were lead with “Labour minister says that there was no investigation and head of HR said Rachel is wonderful” which just seemed like a perfect position for the Beeb now to have another story if Reeves has to go and there was shenanigans then the story will roll on to Labour lying to try and defend her and the minister walked into a trap by telling those lies and trying to bluff through it.
I would be surprised if this doesn’t bring her down - Keir won’t want this bad smell and it’s gives a chance to reset with a more positive message with a new smiley face in the Exchequer rather than the shifty foghorn currently in place.
Edit to add that Ministers and Lab MPs won’t like it if they feel they are being forced to publicly defend her with potentially untrue lines so support will bleed out.
Loving the idea of a new smiley face telling us about the humungous tax rises coming along shortly.
Yep, that'll save Labour...
What will 'save' Labour is the ineptitude of the Conservatives and the inexperience of Reform. I'm beginning to wonder if there might actually be a LibDem, or LibDem led, government in 2029.
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out
I think the assumption on gross misconduct is unfounded. We just don’t know. Given that there was a restructuring coming up easier to add her (and the other 2 managers in the team) to the list rather than have a fight and process to remove her for GM.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?
I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
The only very slightly interesting fact about this story to me is that someone sixteen years ago despised Reeves and her boss enough to raise a whistleblower complaint about their overenthusiastic use of an employee reward scheme the bank didn't bother to control properly. Given what else was going on at the time of the GFC and that HBOS was actually bankrupt this seems remarkably small beer. But I suppose there must have been a huge amount of pissed-off-ness given all the redundancies that ultimately claimed Reeves and her boss too.
Organisational politics.
I’ve seen the kind of “magic circle” of people living well on expenses, before.
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.
There's also a good reason why just about the only thing every political party in the land can agree on is the absolute necessity of maintaining the triple lock in perpetuity.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
The risk with any investigative journalism is you don't find anything, and you have spent time and money for nothing. Which is what I think has happened here.
Back in the day I suspect someone more senior at the BBC would have said, don't publish in those circumstances. I'm not sure the bias is conscious but it comes to the same thing
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out
I think the assumption on gross misconduct is unfounded. We just don’t know. Given that there was a restructuring coming up easier to add her (and the other 2 managers in the team) to the list rather than have a fight and process to remove her for GM.
If there really was an investigation about to report, the smart move was to leave before it reported.
See the old police trick of retiring sick just before a disciplinary panel reports.
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.
Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?
You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...
Someone in the bureaucracy trying to discredit them would choose the most essential people to fire in order to generate this kind of story. It happened with George Osborne too.
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.
There's also a good reason why just about the only thing every political party in the land can agree on is the absolute necessity of maintaining the triple lock in perpetuity.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
My parents agree the triple lock is stupid and so do a number of older posters here. The WASPI women complained, but got nothing ultimately, and the WFA cut will be forgotten by the next election.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Well, that’s the point of real journalism. To go after the stories left or right. If both sides are upset, you are doing it right.
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
Future Starmer: we need to double defence spending so we can no longer afford pension uprating on the scale currently applied. Pensions will be tied to earnings, and inheritance tax will be raised to cover the costs of social care.
Future Farage: this is a gross betrayal of poor little old ladies who paid their taxes all their lives and will now die of hypothermia. People's houses should be inherited by their families not used as a cash machine by the state. We'll pay for the army by cracking down properly on idle benefit cheats.
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out
I think the assumption on gross misconduct is unfounded. We just don’t know. Given that there was a restructuring coming up easier to add her (and the other 2 managers in the team) to the list rather than have a fight and process to remove her for GM.
If there really was an investigation about to report, the smart move was to leave before it reported.
See the old police trick of retiring sick just before a disciplinary panel reports.
It doesn’t appear she had a choice. It was a compromise agreement not a resignation. She could have voluntarily asked to be added to the list, but then you have to assume that all 3 of the individuals concerned asked to be added
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.
There's also a good reason why just about the only thing every political party in the land can agree on is the absolute necessity of maintaining the triple lock in perpetuity.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
What about the billions spent on higher rate tax relief for pension contributions? That money flows to workers, albeit only the higher paid ones, like the newspaper pundits who rail against the triple lock.
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
Who's going to make a start? A new political movement: Oldies for Generational Justice? Or just start a petition to test the waters and begin? Or a dying Conservative party with lots of elderly voters - many of whom, they might find, share those concerns? Or eventually a youth movement eager to wipe out their elders?
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.
Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?
You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...
Someone in the bureaucracy trying to discredit them would choose the most essential people to fire in order to generate this kind of story. It happened with George Osborne too.
You prefer conspiracy theory. I prefer Occam's Razor.
A pimple-strewn Muskovite looks at a list of job descriptions. He has no idea what "Engineering technician second class" means, but knows that when he finally leaves college he'll be first class. Second class is worse than first class, so they guy's job is irrelevant. His red pen lines through the name...
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.
There's also a good reason why just about the only thing every political party in the land can agree on is the absolute necessity of maintaining the triple lock in perpetuity.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
My parents agree the triple lock is stupid and so do a number of older posters here. The WASPI women complained, but got nothing ultimately, and the WFA cut will be forgotten by the next election.
So, saying No to hand outs is possible.
In theory. In practice what will happen later this year is that my employer will plead poverty and give us a shit pay settlement - I mean, they plead bloody poverty every year, but this time they have the Government's stupid NI hike to back the argument up - and my pay will end up being cut in real terms. Meanwhile, the olds will get the rate of inflation slapped on their pensions.
We keep getting poorer - earned incomes have virtually flat lined for almost twenty years, whilst taxes keep going up - whereas pensioners are propped up by the vast amounts of extra spending that we fork out for. What's most shocking of all is that Labour are persisting with this behaviour when pensioners were the only major voter cohort that backed the Tories by a plurality at the last election. They're actually buggering their own core vote to appease that of the Conservatives. When will it ever end?
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
When Wes Streeting, on BBC, said something like 'we'll get a non-politico to have a good look and make recommendations' he was slated by the interviewer. Sounds a sensible way of proceeding to me.
Although surely everyone's had time to have a good think by now.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....
Surely that has to be seen in the context of the large-scale job losses that followed the failure of HBOS and its takeover by Lloyds.
Even the BBC says "There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues ..."
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Perhaps it is the same person who dobbed her in to HBOS all those years ago?
Good morning one and all. I miss our usual Russian contributor.
No, no, OKC, you've got that wrong @williamglenn has been posting relentlessly all morning 🤣
But William would still win politest poster of the year though, you concede?
In contrast to Leon. Now we know Leon, we know he doesn’t really do politics. All his Alt Right cheer leading and woke slamming should carry the community notice: we have had years of this, but suspect he really did vote Labour at the last election.
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.
There's also a good reason why just about the only thing every political party in the land can agree on is the absolute necessity of maintaining the triple lock in perpetuity.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
What about the billions spent on higher rate tax relief for pension contributions? That money flows to workers, albeit only the higher paid ones, like the newspaper pundits who rail against the triple lock.
An excellent point. That's an obvious target for the axe as well as the triple lock. They're both examples of luxuries that can't be afforded.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Well, that’s the point of real journalism. To go after the stories left or right. If both sides are upset, you are doing it right.
I think facts should be important to real journalism too. Those are somewhat missing in the BBC piece
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.
Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?
You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...
Someone in the bureaucracy trying to discredit them would choose the most essential people to fire in order to generate this kind of story. It happened with George Osborne too.
You prefer conspiracy theory. I prefer Occam's Razor.
A pimple-strewn Muskovite looks at a list of job descriptions. He has no idea what "Engineering technician second class" means, but knows that when he finally leaves college he'll be first class. Second class is worse than first class, so they guy's job is irrelevant. His red pen lines through the name...
It's fairly standard practise to threaten to 'fire the nurses' or 'cancel The Archers' when asked to find signifiant savings. It usually stops those savings having to be found. I'm not sure that's a conspiracy theory.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
As a voter, why shouldn't I treat her with total disdain?
That's indeed your right. But would it represent any change from how you treated her at the last election ?
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Otoh we have the US where the rich actually want to increase the value of their assets at the expense of their nation being at least severely damaged. One assumes they expect to reach the level where they’re insulated to the point of secure compounds and private armies. It’s a want of imagination to think that that will be sufficient in all outcomes.
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.
Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?
You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...
Someone in the bureaucracy trying to discredit them would choose the most essential people to fire in order to generate this kind of story. It happened with George Osborne too.
You prefer conspiracy theory. I prefer Occam's Razor.
A pimple-strewn Muskovite looks at a list of job descriptions. He has no idea what "Engineering technician second class" means, but knows that when he finally leaves college he'll be first class. Second class is worse than first class, so they guy's job is irrelevant. His red pen lines through the name...
It's fairly standard practise to threaten to 'fire the nurses' or 'cancel The Archers' when asked to find signifiant savings. It usually stops those savings having to be found. I'm not sure that's a conspiracy theory.
This is not being done on a "Find 5% savings" basis, where the jobs are analysed by people who know what the roles do. This is *entire departments* being closed down by people who have f-all idea, or care, about what those departments do, or what the side effects may be.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....
Surely that has to be seen in the context of the large-scale job losses that followed the failure of HBOS and its takeover by Lloyds.
Even the BBC says "There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues ..."
No. As admittedly a Conservative supporter I will argue Reeves is a cross between Liz Truss and The Great Train Robbers, and should be sacked immediately. Labour would likely get a more qualified, more effective Chancellor in place, so it is better for Conservative recovery to try and keep Reeves front line for long as possible now, but much better to get her sacked if we are putting country before party, so sooner she’s out of the treasury the better for our country and its people and all of us,
ALL politicians are weird. They are just different than us normal people in how extra narcissistic, arrogant, and in it for themselves they all are. For example, I remember my Dad explaining to me what the “Lewis’s List” was all New Labour MPs were using to freeload on tax payer for 13 years, whilst claiming to care about the poor and in greater need. And, For example, how Boris Johnson has gone from Ukraines bestest friend and advocate to Trumps sell out mouthpiece just like that - it is nauseating - he has only done it by calculating ride the populist wave is his only chance of a political comeback he craves! Pass the sick bag.
Credit to TSE for the headers. As soon as he posted “Reeves is safe” she turned to toast in matter of hours.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Well, that’s the point of real journalism. To go after the stories left or right. If both sides are upset, you are doing it right.
I think facts should be important to real journalism too. Those are somewhat missing in the BBC piece
I actually think that they’ve been quite careful in caveating their reporting in what they do/don’t know.
Should they not be running the story at all because it’s a bit embarrassing for Reeves? I think unless there’s more to come it’s weak sauce, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t run it.
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.
Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?
You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...
Someone in the bureaucracy trying to discredit them would choose the most essential people to fire in order to generate this kind of story. It happened with George Osborne too.
You prefer conspiracy theory. I prefer Occam's Razor.
A pimple-strewn Muskovite looks at a list of job descriptions. He has no idea what "Engineering technician second class" means, but knows that when he finally leaves college he'll be first class. Second class is worse than first class, so they guy's job is irrelevant. His red pen lines through the name...
It's fairly standard practise to threaten to 'fire the nurses' or 'cancel The Archers' when asked to find signifiant savings. It usually stops those savings having to be found. I'm not sure that's a conspiracy theory.
Aiui the sacked nuclear inspectors were listed as probationers or administrative staff, which is probably why Team Trump felt they were expendable. Turns out the whole nuclear weapons supply chain needs a lot of paperwork.
Where there might be a cock-up in reporting is confusing the DOE (Department of Energy) with DOGE (Elon Musk).
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Why would a 'tory' want Reeves out - she is the gift that keeps on coming ?
Though not good for the country to have a COE who produced a job and growth destroying budget let alone dodgy cv's
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
When Wes Streeting, on BBC, said something like 'we'll get a non-politico to have a good look and make recommendations' he was slated by the interviewer. Sounds a sensible way of proceeding to me.
Although surely everyone's had time to have a good think by now.
Streeting is a do-nothing. He's deliberately booted any kind of decision on social care beyond the next election by commissioning a useless three year long review that he can then spend more time pretending to read and consider, putting off any actual reform conveniently until after the Government had to write a manifesto spelling out how much it'll cost and where the money is meant to come from.
Whether this is because he wants to avoid carrying the can for incredibly unpopular decisions, or because he knows that Reeves simply won't countenance paying for any of it, I don't know.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....
Surely that has to be seen in the context of the large-scale job losses that followed the failure of HBOS and its takeover by Lloyds.
Even the BBC says "There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues ..."
Compromise agreements are commonly used in such circumstances, entirely free of dodgy behaviour, as well as when something fishy, but hard to prove to the required standard, has occurred. And we'll probably never know for sure which this was.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Interesting. Zelensky is not talking from a position of power here sadly. His army is being pushed back albeit slowly. Notice he never really confirmed Trump wanted to meet him.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Interesting. Zelensky is not talking from a position of power here sadly. His army is being pushed back albeit slowly. Notice he never really confirmed Trump wanted to meet him.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....
Surely that has to be seen in the context of the large-scale job losses that followed the failure of HBOS and its takeover by Lloyds.
Even the BBC says "There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues ..."
Compromise agreements are commonly used in such circumstances, entirely free of dodgy behaviour, as well as when something fishy, but hard to prove to the required standard, has occurred. And we'll probably never know for sure which this was.
If they got rid of the whole team then it looks more like redundancy rather than being ‘managed out’ or a compromise to avoid disciplinary action.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
With the current DOJ ? Seems unlikely.
They are young kids. Years of life ahead.
Can they be absolutely sure that they will not be prosecuted after Trump 2.0 ends (if it does end that is)?
Eventually someone will have to clean up the mess and rebuild american government. Possibly after the civil war.
My friends in DC are catatonic. They can't believe what is happening to them. This is nothing like 2017, they are acting like this is the apocalypse, because for them, it is.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Well, that’s the point of real journalism. To go after the stories left or right. If both sides are upset, you are doing it right.
I think facts should be important to real journalism too. Those are somewhat missing in the BBC piece
I actually think that they’ve been quite careful in caveating their reporting in what they do/don’t know.
Should they not be running the story at all because it’s a bit embarrassing for Reeves? I think unless there’s more to come it’s weak sauce, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t run it.
I have just read the original BBC report and it doesn't seem to be about expenses at all. Expenses would be travel, subsistence, accommodation and maybe entertaining clients. This looks more like three senior managers misusing a corporate credit card to buy each other (and others) pressies
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.
British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.
This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.
I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.
Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.
It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.
Until the effort is made, we won't know.
Theresa May says hi.
She sprung it on the voters in the middle of an election. One needs to make the case for reform, over a period of time.
When Wes Streeting, on BBC, said something like 'we'll get a non-politico to have a good look and make recommendations' he was slated by the interviewer. Sounds a sensible way of proceeding to me.
Although surely everyone's had time to have a good think by now.
Streeting is a do-nothing. He's deliberately booted any kind of decision on social care beyond the next election by commissioning a useless three year long review that he can then spend more time pretending to read and consider, putting off any actual reform conveniently until after the Government had to write a manifesto spelling out how much it'll cost and where the money is meant to come from.
Whether this is because he wants to avoid carrying the can for incredibly unpopular decisions, or because he knows that Reeves simply won't countenance paying for any of it, I don't know.
Streeting has so far proved to be a massive disappointment. I had real hopes for him when he was in opposition as he really did seem to understand the issues and be willing to make tough decisions. But he has done nothing. He had years as Shadow Health Secretary to devise plans - indeed he was claiming for years that thta was exactly what he had been doing. But once in power they seem to have evaporated.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
With the current DOJ ? Seems unlikely.
They are young kids. Years of life ahead.
Can they be absolutely sure that they will not be prosecuted after Trump 2.0 ends (if it does end that is)?
Eventually someone will have to clean up the mess and rebuild american government. Possibly after the civil war.
They have crossed the rubicon now. They have to stay in power at all costs. I doubt the 2028 election will be free and fair.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Trump will support NATO countries who not only increase defence spending, but buy the military from him
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
We don't know that there was bad behaviour.
All we really know is that there is someone with a grudge against Reeves and/or the Labour Party and has made an unsubstantiated claim about events 15 years ago, and this has been taken up by the BBC.
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out
Some of the BBC stuff is quite damning - and given that much of it came from colleagues complaints when she worked there, suggests that she's never been very popular with her work colleagues, which doubtless also explains why this story is re-emerging now.
A detailed six-page whistleblowing complaint was submitted, with dozens of pages of supporting documents including emails, receipts and memos. It accused Reeves and two other managers, one of whom was her boss, of using the bank's money to "fund a lifestyle", with spending on events, taxis and gifts, including for each other. We have seen these documents and spoken to more than 20 people, many of whom were former colleagues.
She's another of those - just like Streeting - who were working toward a political career since they left school. We'd be better off with people who have had a real career for a decade or two, before going into politics.
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out
Some of the BBC stuff is quite damning - and given that much of it came from colleagues complaints when she worked there, suggests that she's never been very popular with her work colleagues, which doubtless also explains why this story is re-emerging now.
A detailed six-page whistleblowing complaint was submitted, with dozens of pages of supporting documents including emails, receipts and memos. It accused Reeves and two other managers, one of whom was her boss, of using the bank's money to "fund a lifestyle", with spending on events, taxis and gifts, including for each other. We have seen these documents and spoken to more than 20 people, many of whom were former colleagues.
She's another of those - just like Streeting - who were working toward a political career since they left school. We'd be better off with people who have had a real career for a decade or two, before going into politics.
How about someone who has existed on benefits for decades or stayed in private rented accommodation for the same. This is as much real life experience as a ‘ career’
CDC employees are reportedly preparing to submit their resignation letters in large numbers following the announcement that RFK Jr. will head the Department of Health and Human Services.
@ElizabethBangs Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs. But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?
There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.
I recall the BBC reporting investigative stories hostile to various governments, as long as I can remember. Of all shades of the various colours.
But we all knew BBC News was a pro- leftie cabal of Soviet sympathetic journalists. Now that is no longer true and it is the Daily Mail of broadcast media we should be told. I am not saying anything about that is wrong, we just need to be aware that they are actively campaigning to remove this Government.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Well, that’s the point of real journalism. To go after the stories left or right. If both sides are upset, you are doing it right.
I think facts should be important to real journalism too. Those are somewhat missing in the BBC piece
I actually think that they’ve been quite careful in caveating their reporting in what they do/don’t know.
Should they not be running the story at all because it’s a bit embarrassing for Reeves? I think unless there’s more to come it’s weak sauce, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t run it.
I have just read the original BBC report and it doesn't seem to be about expenses at all. Expenses would be travel, subsistence, accommodation and maybe entertaining clients. This looks more like three senior managers misusing a corporate credit card to buy each other (and others) pressies
If she was a senior manager, why did she need to (allegedly) invent a dentist's appointment to go to a Labour selection meeting? Does a senior manager need permission to leave the office for a couple of hours?
My friends in DC are catatonic. They can't believe what is happening to them. This is nothing like 2017, they are acting like this is the apocalypse, because for them, it is.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Trump will support NATO countries who not only increase defence spending, but buy the military from him
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
We don't know that there was bad behaviour.
All we really know is that there is someone with a grudge against Reeves and/or the Labour Party and has made an unsubstantiated claim about events 15 years ago, and this has been taken up by the BBC.
There is a whistle-blower involved but without the BBC naming them it is not possible to identify them, even though you seem to suggest it is a Tory without any providing any evidence
Good morning one and all. I miss our usual Russian contributor.
No, no, OKC, you've got that wrong @williamglenn has been posting relentlessly all morning 🤣
But William would still win politest poster of the year though, you concede?
In contrast to Leon. Now we know Leon, we know he doesn’t really do politics. All his Alt Right cheer leading and woke slamming should carry the community notice: we have had years of this, but suspect he really did vote Labour at the last election.
Despite the sometimes bonkers nature of his narrative, William's posts are very readable too.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
What were the whistleblower's claims though? That the whole team was generous with expenses and that Reeves' claims were all signed off by her manager? Wouldn't that be a reason to ‘lose’ the manager rather than Reeves? That she spent £1,000 on taxis in three months? Well, so did I; so what? It is different if Reeves was writing her own receipts (in my case, I just used the company account which was billed monthly). The only troubling allegation is a £20 bottle of champagne expensed as a reward but not given to the claimed recipient.
So a possible £20 theft nearly 20 years ago – hardly Woodward & Bernstein.
My friends in DC are catatonic. They can't believe what is happening to them. This is nothing like 2017, they are acting like this is the apocalypse, because for them, it is.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Trump will support NATO countries who not only increase defence spending, but buy the military from him
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
In that situation we should do our best to source weapons which are not produced in the US. Trump has madd it extremely clear his America is not a reliable ally. We need to rebuild our own manufacturing capacity.
Vance's earlier European speech - in Paris - has somewhat gone under the radar
And yet it is in some ways even better than his brilliant Munich speech. He is absolutely lucid, candid, forthright, eloquent. You can tell he is a good writer. Compare his crisp, clever, subtly passionate delivery with the windbagging torrent of verbless ordure we get from British politicos
He is genuinely good at this. Unless the American economy goes tits up and over (quite possible with Trump at the helm) then he will be very hard to beat for the Dems and he is the obvious candidate for the GOP. He's right here in front of them
My friends in DC are catatonic. They can't believe what is happening to them. This is nothing like 2017, they are acting like this is the apocalypse, because for them, it is.
Chagos Deal - big development to report. Any day I expect this EXACT sentence from Trump: “it’s a very bad deal, it’s very bad, but we are sorting it out. Mauritius will get a deal, but we will sort it out first, and everyone will love it after we do that.”
What has just happened? FT reported in January Starmer Government will wait for Trump’s approval before signing. Modi met Trump for working visit this week BBC reported “both sides comfortable continuing Biden-era collaborations, in tech and defence”. India courted by the West as partner in countering China, experts say Trump's second presidency will continue this, not lecture India on human rights as last administration did.
India is HUGE fan of UKs Chagos surrender. Chagos was negotiated with Mauritius by both Conservative and Labour government with Biden administration and Modi’s government “inputting”. Yesterday, after meeting Modi - Trump placed his own negotiator overtly in the middle of the ongoing negotiating room. This makes me inform you for sure, at some point Trump will instruct Starmer to sign it. In fact i am convinced Trumps order is not just sign it, UK must frontload millions in payments to Mauritius for Trump and Modi’s newly elected friend Navin Ramgoolam to play with.
Surely Trumps intervention in negotiations will not just be front load millions for Ramgoolam, but all those security fears fettled away too? Key item in the deal to watch for, restrictions on fishing rights around Garcia. Otherwise how will we really know it not just rebranding same deal they said was bad?
Aside from Chinese spy equipment in simple junks, defining reason UK must NOT sign this deal is a legal precedent created that will be used by other states, backed in gaming the system by gang of UK belligerents who sponsored Mauritius, (Russia, India, etc), to make predatory claims on British territory everywhere, where it’s difficult now to argue precedent applies to Chagos, not Cyprus nor Falklands. But UK colonialism on retreat not so much a Chagos deal breaker for our Indian and America friends, for them it’s actually incentive to ratify! They are anti UK colonial power except, brazen hypocrisy, rare instances like Chagos UK retaining something benefits them! A tricky, unacknowledgeable war Britain fights alone last 100 years.
A key item to watch for - giving in on Trump and Modi’s bullying for upfront millions for Ramgoolam government - will prove just how hapless Labour are standing up for Britain. Even £90M a year is far too much.*
*caveat is how much US chips in, in the round, that’s never overtly acknowledged.
The sovereign bases in Cyprus are very similar to the Chagos situation, but they occurred before the UN declaration that is the basis of the ruling that this was illegal, whereas Chagos was later. That makes the Cyprus case much weaker.
The Falklands is a different case. The Chagos case has no direct relevance.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Trump will support NATO countries who not only increase defence spending, but buy the military from him
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
In that situation we should do our best to source weapons which are not produced in the US. Trump has madd it extremely clear his America is not a reliable ally. We need to rebuild our own manufacturing capacity.
Pipedream. The uk establishments answer to any problem is to print more money and more mass immigration. Look at our debt to gdp compared to say Russia.
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
We don't know that there was bad behaviour.
All we really know is that there is someone with a grudge against Reeves and/or the Labour Party and has made an unsubstantiated claim about events 15 years ago, and this has been taken up by the BBC.
You are trying to make this just about the BBC when it isn't. As I said, the Times has also been running with this with their own investigations. And the whistleblower allegations were, according to both the Times and the BBC, subject to an internal audit, which reviewed the allegations and concluded that they were substantiated.
Trying to pretend this is just someone with a grudge doesn't wash.
Were they serious enough that she should lose her job after all this time? I don't know. But you seem to be rather cavalier in picking and choosing which whistleblowers you think should be believed and who should just be dismissed as pursuing a grudge.
Vance's earlier European speech - in Paris - has somewhat gone under the radar
And yet it is in some ways even better than his brilliant Munich speech. He is absolutely lucid, candid, forthright, eloquent. You can tell he is a good writer. Compare his crisp, clever, subtly passionate delivery with the windbagging torrent of verbless ordure we get from British politicos
He is genuinely good at this. Unless the American economy goes tits up and over (quite possible with Trump at the helm) then he will be very hard to beat for the Dems and he is the obvious candidate for the GOP. He's right here in front of them
Hes great isnt he. And look at the faces in the audience.
Vance's earlier European speech - in Paris - has somewhat gone under the radar
And yet it is in some ways even better than his brilliant Munich speech. He is absolutely lucid, candid, forthright, eloquent. You can tell he is a good writer. Compare his crisp, clever, subtly passionate delivery with the windbagging torrent of verbless ordure we get from British politicos
He is genuinely good at this. Unless the American economy goes tits up and over (quite possible with Trump at the helm) then he will be very hard to beat for the Dems and he is the obvious candidate for the GOP. He's right here in front of them
Hes great isnt he. And look at the faces in the audience.
Yes, they are ashen. Like a bunch of posh kids used to sodomising the school badger, suddenly caught by an actual adult with morals
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
They would not have been fired without Elon's fratboys.
Elon's fratboys fired them.
Given how lawyer ridden the USA I doubt that its as easy to fire people in reality than it is to claim that its happened on twatter.
Depending on the state, it's REALLY easy to fire people in the US.
Pennsylvania for example is "right to work" state, which in effect means right to terminate immediately
EDIT: Perhaps 'fire' is a confusing word in this context. What actually happens is the position is eliminated, so perhaps made redundant is a better term
Will DOGE axe the IRS workers investigating tech bro squillionaires and New York property developers?
Musk has just fathered another child you know. Shes pretty hot too. To the victor the spoils the losers lose their cushy public sector job and work at maccyds.
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
I concur with Zelensky's assessment of the threat, but not with his proposed remedy. Brussels is sclerotic and the nations of Europe and the EU are too diverse in interests to speak as one. What is chiefly lacking is the discipline to defend our values or even the will to do so. Much easier to keep going the way we're now comfortably used to.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Trump will support NATO countries who not only increase defence spending, but buy the military from him
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
In that situation we should do our best to source weapons which are not produced in the US. Trump has madd it extremely clear his America is not a reliable ally. We need to rebuild our own manufacturing capacity.
Maybe but that will take years and buying US military including fighter jets is the only option in the meantime
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
They would not have been fired without Elon's fratboys.
Elon's fratboys fired them.
Given how lawyer ridden the USA I doubt that its as easy to fire people in reality than it is to claim that its happened on twatter.
Depending on the state, it's REALLY easy to fire people in the US.
Pennsylvania for example is "right to work" state, which in effect means right to terminate immediately
EDIT: Perhaps 'fire' is a confusing word in this context. What actually happens is the position is eliminated, so perhaps made redundant is a better term
Isn't it the case though that Federal workers are coverd by Federal rules and laws not just State ones?
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.
There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.
If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?
Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?
I'm not a Reeves supporter and dislike many of her policies.
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this. "However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
Not sure it stinks any more than any other politics. Dobbing in Johnson for his parties during lockdown?
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
We don't know that there was bad behaviour.
All we really know is that there is someone with a grudge against Reeves and/or the Labour Party and has made an unsubstantiated claim about events 15 years ago, and this has been taken up by the BBC.
There is a whistle-blower involved but without the BBC naming them it is not possible to identify them, even though you seem to suggest it is a Tory without any providing any evidence
Why the BBC and not the Telegraph who broke the expenses scandal or the Sunday Times Insight team or GB News? Or if on the left, why not the Guardian or New Statesman?
I'd be looking at recent recruits to the BBC journalism graduate scheme whose mum or dad worked at HBOS two decades back and gave them this to help junior's career.
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.
They would not have been fired without Elon's fratboys.
Elon's fratboys fired them.
Given how lawyer ridden the USA I doubt that its as easy to fire people in reality than it is to claim that its happened on twatter.
Depending on the state, it's REALLY easy to fire people in the US.
Pennsylvania for example is "right to work" state, which in effect means right to terminate immediately
EDIT: Perhaps 'fire' is a confusing word in this context. What actually happens is the position is eliminated, so perhaps made redundant is a better term
Isn't it the case though that Federal workers are coverd by Federal rules and laws not just State ones?
Vance's earlier European speech - in Paris - has somewhat gone under the radar
And yet it is in some ways even better than his brilliant Munich speech. He is absolutely lucid, candid, forthright, eloquent. You can tell he is a good writer. Compare his crisp, clever, subtly passionate delivery with the windbagging torrent of verbless ordure we get from British politicos
He is genuinely good at this. Unless the American economy goes tits up and over (quite possible with Trump at the helm) then he will be very hard to beat for the Dems and he is the obvious candidate for the GOP. He's right here in front of them
The man is an idiot. That has been proved time and again - even Trump doesn’t rate him - for Trump, he is a useful idiot. The thing I can’t quite work out is my sister, Usha Vance. She is allegedly very bright academically - just shows you can get straight As and still be an ignorant fool. Alternatively, she is just there for the ride…
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
They won't care because they know they will be pardoned by Trump before he leaves office.
The pardoning of those convicted of Jan 6th offences gave a clear signal that it's OK to break the law provided it is done in the interests of Donald Trump. Musk will do whatever he pleases knowing that he is practically immune from legal prosecution.
The ability of Presidents to pardon people convicted of criminal acts is one of the most ludicrous aspects of the US political system. In the wrong hands it simply encourages criminality without consequences which is what I believe we are going to see over the next 4 years
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
I've encountered a few middle managers who never gave the required priority or ethics to their job.
They also treated their workers badly and were quick to blame others rather than accept responsibility when things went wrong.
Its easy to imagine someone is getting even for never forgotten bad treatment.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
They won't care because they know they will be pardoned by Trump before he leaves office.
The pardoning of those convicted of Jan 6th offences gave a clear signal that it's OK to break the law provided it is done in the interests of Donald Trump. Musk will do whatever he pleases knowing that he is practically immune from legal prosecution.
The ability of Presidents to pardon people convicted of criminal acts is one of the most ludicrous aspects of the US political system. In the wrong hands it simply encourages criminality without consequences which is what I believe we are going to see over the next 4 years
Trump can only pardon them for Federal crimes.
Publicly posting personal information on a US citizen is a civil offence. A class action could see them looking at serious jail time and bankruptcy
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
They won't care because they know they will be pardoned by Trump before he leaves office.
The pardoning of those convicted of Jan 6th offences gave a clear signal that it's OK to break the law provided it is done in the interests of Donald Trump. Musk will do whatever he pleases knowing that he is practically immune from legal prosecution.
The ability of Presidents to pardon people convicted of criminal acts is one of the most ludicrous aspects of the US political system. In the wrong hands it simply encourages criminality without consequences which is what I believe we are going to see over the next 4 years
It also encourages strong leadership. Lazy bureaucrats get whats coming to them. The rest of america laughs as they ask do you want fries with that.
Comments
I'm beginning to wonder if there might actually be a LibDem, or LibDem led, government in 2029.
"Security clearance lawyer Bradley Moss posted: “If you’re a clearance holder, stay away from the DOGE site. These ignorant virgins are going to find themselves prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act before all is said and done.” "
Heather Cox Richardson email
I’ve seen the kind of “magic circle” of people living well on expenses, before.
It really puts other people’s backs up.
Occasional lip service is paid to the interests of the young, but all that most of the population under state pension age are seen as are so many cash machines, or in the case of kids, cash machines in training.
Elon's fratboys fired them.
Back in the day I suspect someone more senior at the BBC would have said, don't publish in those circumstances. I'm not sure the bias is conscious but it comes to the same thing
See the old police trick of retiring sick just before a disciplinary panel reports.
And why has Sarah Smith, daughter of Prime Minister in waiting, John, gone all pro Trump?
Punchy from Zelensky
"Does America need Europe as a market - yes. But as an ally - I don't know.
"For the answer to be yes Europe needs a single voice - not a dozen different ones.”
“Some in Europe might be frustrated with Brussels but let's be clear - if not Brussels then Moscow. It's your decision."
We know which the Brexiteers prefer...
So, saying No to hand outs is possible.
Future Farage: this is a gross betrayal of poor little old ladies who paid their taxes all their lives and will now die of hypothermia. People's houses should be inherited by their families not used as a cash machine by the state. We'll pay for the army by cracking down properly on idle benefit cheats.
Result: Reform landslide.
The situation is hopeless.
A pimple-strewn Muskovite looks at a list of job descriptions. He has no idea what "Engineering technician second class" means, but knows that when he finally leaves college he'll be first class. Second class is worse than first class, so they guy's job is irrelevant. His red pen lines through the name...
But this stinks.
I don't think the leaker is a rival in the Labour Party. It's too much of a coincidence as they would also have to have worked with Reeves in HBOS 15 years ago.
It is more likely that it is a hard core Tory who did work alongside Reeves and has come out with this story, anonymously and unsubstantiated, in order to harm Labour.
Others on here have then made up narratives to support their preferred story of "a thief in cabinet".
The odd thing is that the BBC has lowered its standards by running with this.
I suspect, but don't know, that the BBC reporters concerned think that they are Bob Woodwards. Pathetic.
I see the BBC is on the defensive on this.
"However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action."
We keep getting poorer - earned incomes have virtually flat lined for almost twenty years, whilst taxes keep going up - whereas pensioners are propped up by the vast amounts of extra spending that we fork out for. What's most shocking of all is that Labour are persisting with this behaviour when pensioners were the only major voter cohort that backed the Tories by a plurality at the last election. They're actually buggering their own core vote to appease that of the Conservatives. When will it ever end?
Sounds a sensible way of proceeding to me.
Although surely everyone's had time to have a good think by now.
Even the BBC says "There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues ..."
In contrast to Leon. Now we know Leon, we know he doesn’t really do politics. All his Alt Right cheer leading and woke slamming should carry the community notice: we have had years of this, but suspect he really did vote Labour at the last election.
But would it represent any change from how you treated her at the last election ?
But yes, the effort has to be made.
It is going to be disastrous for the US.
Seems unlikely.
ALL politicians are weird. They are just different than us normal people in how extra narcissistic, arrogant, and in it for themselves they all are. For example, I remember my Dad explaining to me what the “Lewis’s List” was all New Labour MPs were using to freeload on tax payer for 13 years, whilst claiming to care about the poor and in greater need. And, For example, how Boris Johnson has gone from Ukraines bestest friend and advocate to Trumps sell out mouthpiece just like that - it is nauseating - he has only done it by calculating ride the populist wave is his only chance of a political comeback he craves! Pass the sick bag.
Credit to TSE for the headers. As soon as he posted “Reeves is safe” she turned to toast in matter of hours.
Please post “Putin and Trump are safe.” soon.
It seems to me only a matter of time before European nations are taken over, whether by Russia, China, or Islam. Or maybe even the US.
Should they not be running the story at all because it’s a bit embarrassing for Reeves? I think unless there’s more to come it’s weak sauce, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t run it.
Where there might be a cock-up in reporting is confusing the DOE (Department of Energy) with DOGE (Elon Musk).
Though not good for the country to have a COE who produced a job and growth destroying budget let alone dodgy cv's
Whether this is because he wants to avoid carrying the can for incredibly unpopular decisions, or because he knows that Reeves simply won't countenance paying for any of it, I don't know.
And we'll probably never know for sure which this was.
The only important questions are, were the allegations true and, if they were, were they serious enough to make the targets position untenable?
In the case of Johnson this seems to be a clear yes to both questions.
In the case of Reeves, I have seen it posted on here and reported in the Times, without apparent challenge, that the whistleblower's claims were found to be substantially true, even if it didn't get to disciplinary action because she left.
So the only question that really then matters is whether they were serious enough to merit removing Reeves from her current position.
I don't know the answer to that one. It is more politics and public mood than a fact based decision.
But to claim it 'stinks' seems to be excusing any sort of bad behaviour no matter how severe simply on the grounds that you don't like whistleblowers.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNd1BoXHe/
And welcome.
Can they be absolutely sure that they will not be prosecuted after Trump 2.0 ends (if it does end that is)?
Eventually someone will have to clean up the mess and rebuild american government. Possibly after the civil war.
My friends in DC are catatonic. They can't believe what is happening to them. This is nothing like 2017, they are acting like this is the apocalypse, because for them, it is.
https://x.com/expatanon/status/1890512863317414151
The security of Europe is going to need cooperation across the EU, UK and others but I just do not see a European army as a realistic proposition not least because there are so many differences between individual EU states
I can understand Trump and the US case that far too many NATO members have expected a free lunch funded from the US and they have to contribute much more to the costs
All we really know is that there is someone with a grudge against Reeves and/or the Labour Party and has made an unsubstantiated claim about events 15 years ago, and this has been taken up by the BBC.
CM is an odd fish How about someone who has existed on benefits for decades or stayed in private rented accommodation for the same. This is as much real life experience as a ‘
career’
https://x.com/dreamy12122/status/1890376548970078374
BREAKING: The IRS is gearing up to fire thousands of federal workers as soon as next week, according to the New York Times.
The revelation comes one day after DOGE workers were reportedly unleashed on the Internal Revenue Service.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1890509162427404782
So a possible £20 theft nearly 20 years ago – hardly Woodward & Bernstein.
Trump has madd it extremely clear his America is not a reliable ally. We need to rebuild our own manufacturing capacity.
And yet it is in some ways even better than his brilliant Munich speech. He is absolutely lucid, candid, forthright, eloquent. You can tell he is a good writer. Compare his crisp, clever, subtly passionate delivery with the windbagging torrent of verbless ordure we get from British politicos
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1889349078657716680
He is genuinely good at this. Unless the American economy goes tits up and over (quite possible with Trump at the helm) then he will be very hard to beat for the Dems and he is the obvious candidate for the GOP. He's right here in front of them
The Falklands is a different case. The Chagos case has no direct relevance.
Trying to pretend this is just someone with a grudge doesn't wash.
Were they serious enough that she should lose her job after all this time? I don't know. But you seem to be rather cavalier in picking and choosing which whistleblowers you think should be believed and who should just be dismissed as pursuing a grudge.
I have my suspicions...
Pennsylvania for example is "right to work" state, which in effect means right to terminate immediately
EDIT: Perhaps 'fire' is a confusing word in this context. What actually happens is the position is eliminated, so perhaps made redundant is a better term
Also what is going to happen with AUKUS ?
Still, always interesting to see who ends up saying "This Putinist troll speaks a lot of sense."
I'd be looking at recent recruits to the BBC journalism graduate scheme whose mum or dad worked at HBOS two decades back and gave them this to help junior's career.
BREAKING: President Trump & RFK Jr. are planning to fire up to 5,200 federal employees today across the health agencies, including the NIH, CDC, etc.
https://x.com/realdogeusa/status/1890484617817239823
The pardoning of those convicted of Jan 6th offences gave a clear signal that it's OK to break the law provided it is done in the interests of Donald Trump. Musk will do whatever he pleases knowing that he is practically immune from legal prosecution.
The ability of Presidents to pardon people convicted of criminal acts is one of the most ludicrous aspects of the US political system. In the wrong hands it simply encourages criminality without consequences which is what I believe we are going to see over the next 4 years
They also treated their workers badly and were quick to blame others rather than accept responsibility when things went wrong.
Its easy to imagine someone is getting even for never forgotten bad treatment.
https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1889631819437347235
Publicly posting personal information on a US citizen is a civil offence. A class action could see them looking at serious jail time and bankruptcy