Poor figures for Labour and it's only going to get worse. The Tories will be in the lead on the economy by the middle of next year and it's because the outgoing government handed over 1.2% growth in H1 and Labour has trashed it in record time while putting up taxes by an unnecessary amount.
Everyone is going to feel worse off and Labour will take the blame for it as desperate as they are to try and push it on the previous government, businesses or anyone except themselves.
These next few years are going to be painful for everyone and I think the Tories need policies that will cut spending and cut public sector employment by a substantial number. We will continue down the road to Argentina if the Tories do nothing, a tax and spend death spiral.
Healthcare and welfare is the ballgame. It’s easier for a Labour government to reform then so I was rather hoping they would. They won’t, will they?
My instinct is that we need to radically rethink primary care, and obviously we need a proper answer on social care.
Social care needs a mandatory insurance provision that averages around £300 per person per year over 50. Not anything that will break the bank and subsidies available for people on low or fixed incomes. That would generate around £6bn per year which would fully fund social care at a stroke for everyone and it gets older people paying for their own care for just £10-12k lifetime insurance costs. Sure not everyone is going to need to use it but once people have it they'll wonder how we ever lived without the concept because the insurance will just handle all costs from day one without the hassle of having so sell property and with the risk so widely distributed over ~20m people there's no need for huge risk premiums as there would be now for the few people who would voluntarily purchase insurance of this kind.
As for healthcare shoveling money at the problem isn't the answer. It's all going to get pissed up the wall and the NHS management will be back asking for another £20bn in two years. It is a money pit and junking the whole system seems like the only way out right now.
Gosh. I agree with your first paragraph. I wish you'd done two posts, so that I could 'like' the first paragraph and 'dislike' the second.
Is that maths on social care correct? Circa £100k/annum for care home or 24hr care at home, your £6bn is only covering 60,000 people requiring full-time care. Google tells me there are circa 400,000 in care homes, plus all those being cared for in the community. It's only £300pp pa has become £2-3k
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
It was certainly v v bad when done by Boris.
Bad enough for HIM to lose his job. But IOKIYAL....
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
I suppose that her CV actually will have been used in support of her selection as a candidate - so if anyone has a legitimate grievance, it'll be the Labour Party.
Step forward, current party chair... er... Ellie Reeves. Ah.
Poor figures for Labour and it's only going to get worse. The Tories will be in the lead on the economy by the middle of next year and it's because the outgoing government handed over 1.2% growth in H1 and Labour has trashed it in record time while putting up taxes by an unnecessary amount.
Everyone is going to feel worse off and Labour will take the blame for it as desperate as they are to try and push it on the previous government, businesses or anyone except themselves.
These next few years are going to be painful for everyone and I think the Tories need policies that will cut spending and cut public sector employment by a substantial number. We will continue down the road to Argentina if the Tories do nothing, a tax and spend death spiral.
Healthcare and welfare is the ballgame. It’s easier for a Labour government to reform then so I was rather hoping they would. They won’t, will they?
My instinct is that we need to radically rethink primary care, and obviously we need a proper answer on social care.
Social care needs a mandatory insurance provision that averages around £300 per person per year over 50. Not anything that will break the bank and subsidies available for people on low or fixed incomes. That would generate around £6bn per year which would fully fund social care at a stroke for everyone and it gets older people paying for their own care for just £10-12k lifetime insurance costs. Sure not everyone is going to need to use it but once people have it they'll wonder how we ever lived without the concept because the insurance will just handle all costs from day one without the hassle of having so sell property and with the risk so widely distributed over ~20m people there's no need for huge risk premiums as there would be now for the few people who would voluntarily purchase insurance of this kind.
As for healthcare shoveling money at the problem isn't the answer. It's all going to get pissed up the wall and the NHS management will be back asking for another £20bn in two years. It is a money pit and junking the whole system seems like the only way out right now.
I agree with 90% of this. There will be many people idealogically opposed to insurance, but the alternative is taxing working age people for the universal provision of care of (often rich) older people, which is a step this country cannot sustain. Even mandatory flat insurance will be regressive because it will serve to protect large inheritances, but that's a different issue imo.
Where I disagree is the shovelling of money. I think 11% of GDP on healthcare is fine (17% in the US); I'd boost it to 13% as long as all of the extra money goes on Public Health (perhaps a bit on primary). We have to freeze secondary care in real terms before it's eats all of our tax revenue.
I think the NHS is capable of doing that, as it did in the past.
The problem is that the medical profession will hoover up any increase in funding for their own gain, in their selfish belief that they are immensely more worthy of large pay cheques than any of their health service colleagues.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
Poor figures for Labour and it's only going to get worse. The Tories will be in the lead on the economy by the middle of next year and it's because the outgoing government handed over 1.2% growth in H1 and Labour has trashed it in record time while putting up taxes by an unnecessary amount.
Everyone is going to feel worse off and Labour will take the blame for it as desperate as they are to try and push it on the previous government, businesses or anyone except themselves.
These next few years are going to be painful for everyone and I think the Tories need policies that will cut spending and cut public sector employment by a substantial number. We will continue down the road to Argentina if the Tories do nothing, a tax and spend death spiral.
Healthcare and welfare is the ballgame. It’s easier for a Labour government to reform then so I was rather hoping they would. They won’t, will they?
My instinct is that we need to radically rethink primary care, and obviously we need a proper answer on social care.
Social care needs a mandatory insurance provision that averages around £300 per person per year over 50. Not anything that will break the bank and subsidies available for people on low or fixed incomes. That would generate around £6bn per year which would fully fund social care at a stroke for everyone and it gets older people paying for their own care for just £10-12k lifetime insurance costs. Sure not everyone is going to need to use it but once people have it they'll wonder how we ever lived without the concept because the insurance will just handle all costs from day one without the hassle of having so sell property and with the risk so widely distributed over ~20m people there's no need for huge risk premiums as there would be now for the few people who would voluntarily purchase insurance of this kind.
As for healthcare shoveling money at the problem isn't the answer. It's all going to get pissed up the wall and the NHS management will be back asking for another £20bn in two years. It is a money pit and junking the whole system seems like the only way out right now.
Gosh. I agree with your first paragraph. I wish you'd done two posts, so that I could 'like' the first paragraph and 'dislike' the second.
I'm open to ideas on how to fix the NHS but there seems to be nothing forthcoming from Labour (or the Tories for that matter) though I instinctively preferred the Tory method which will give us substantially the same outcomes but for £20bn less spent.
The Tories aren't going to get a go until that money is spent, anyway, though. So encouraging new ideas now would be preferable.
Like Northern Al, I approve the social care insurance idea.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
Poor figures for Labour and it's only going to get worse. The Tories will be in the lead on the economy by the middle of next year and it's because the outgoing government handed over 1.2% growth in H1 and Labour has trashed it in record time while putting up taxes by an unnecessary amount.
Everyone is going to feel worse off and Labour will take the blame for it as desperate as they are to try and push it on the previous government, businesses or anyone except themselves.
These next few years are going to be painful for everyone and I think the Tories need policies that will cut spending and cut public sector employment by a substantial number. We will continue down the road to Argentina if the Tories do nothing, a tax and spend death spiral.
Healthcare and welfare is the ballgame. It’s easier for a Labour government to reform then so I was rather hoping they would. They won’t, will they?
My instinct is that we need to radically rethink primary care, and obviously we need a proper answer on social care.
Social care needs a mandatory insurance provision that averages around £300 per person per year over 50. Not anything that will break the bank and subsidies available for people on low or fixed incomes. That would generate around £6bn per year which would fully fund social care at a stroke for everyone and it gets older people paying for their own care for just £10-12k lifetime insurance costs. Sure not everyone is going to need to use it but once people have it they'll wonder how we ever lived without the concept because the insurance will just handle all costs from day one without the hassle of having so sell property and with the risk so widely distributed over ~20m people there's no need for huge risk premiums as there would be now for the few people who would voluntarily purchase insurance of this kind.
As for healthcare shoveling money at the problem isn't the answer. It's all going to get pissed up the wall and the NHS management will be back asking for another £20bn in two years. It is a money pit and junking the whole system seems like the only way out right now.
Gosh. I agree with your first paragraph. I wish you'd done two posts, so that I could 'like' the first paragraph and 'dislike' the second.
Is that maths on social care correct? Circa £100k/annum for care home or 24hr care at home, your £6bn is only covering 60,000 people requiring full-time care. Google tells me there are circa 400,000 in care homes, plus all those being cared for in the community. It's only £300pp pa has become £2-3k
£6bn is the estimated funding gap for social care, not the full cost of it. Though there's a world in which insurance covers the whole cost of care in the future though it would need careful thought on how people could pay ca. £1-1.5k per year per person for insurance fees and what level of subsidy would be fair for people on low and fixed incomes.
Has anyone else got an Apple 16 pro Max but NOT Apple Intelligence?
I've done all the necessary things, switched to US English, got a US voice for Siri, which should apparently block any problems, but still no Apple Intelligence
Yes, I have heard that Apple Intelligence is about as intelligent as a pigeon recently squashed under a 29 Bus but still, it would be nice to have the option. Otherwise my shiny new phone is barely distinguishable from my Apple 13, which was about 8 iterations go. Smartphones have stopped improving
Coming in December to UK. But even then it is all a very slow roll out (of what is basically a skin around ChatGPT).
Was trying the new ChatGPT model earlier, its worse again....although supposedly the improvements are around its making its text generation more natural (which isn't my use case).
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
Boris Johnson and Brexit was a gift to Putin, and yes he should have resigned, just as Reeves should. There should not be a lower standard applied to politicians than is normally applied to the governed.
The universal nature of the NHS will need to come under scrutiny not least when it is consuming so much of the nations income
I know it is a religion, but the time must come where insurance plays a part and free to all, no matter how wealthy, is changed so the broadest shoulders pay their fair share
Arguably those with the broadest shoulders already do pay their share. The rich pay far more in tax than the poor, to a larger extent than most western countries.
Yes. An insurance model would take us in the opposite direction.
I don't think the problem with the NHS is how it is funded.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Depends what you mean.
Themis is the ESA project to build an equivalent to the F9 Grasshopper.
Which is just a test system.
ArianeGroup is very carefully trying to make sure this doesn't progress, apart from the money. While being the contractor to the project...
Like Lockheed with the X-33, they don't want reusables, and especially don't want reusables from someone else.
ESA are also funding various small rocket companies who are actually trying to launch things. Ariane complains bitterly, at intervals, that the money should go to them.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
It was certainly v v bad when done by Boris.
Bad enough for HIM to lose his job. But IOKIYAL....
It was not Labour that ousted Boris, and even on the Tory side, lying was not the proximate cause, although it did mean the Privileges Committee would have sealed his coffin if he'd tried to return.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
You need to get over it, just like we've got over Brexit.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
He brought himself down, a month earlier he promised the party that the lies were in the past then lo and behold he gets caught lying about Chris Pincher.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Depends what you mean.
Themis is the ESA project to build an equivalent to the F9 Grasshopper.
Which is just a test system.
ArianeGroup is very carefully trying to make sure this doesn't progress, apart from the money. While being the contractor to the project...
Like Lockheed with the X-33, they don't want reusables, and especially don't want reusables from someone else.
ESA are also funding various small rocket companies who are actually trying to launch things. Ariane complains bitterly, at intervals, that the money should go to them.
With a bit of vision, deregulation, and road paving, there’s a massive opportunity for our Cornish and Scottish space ports for certain types of orbit. And offering a launch option to EU firms/countries that don’t want to trek to South America feels like a decent proposition.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
He brought himself down, a month earlier he promised the party that the lies were in the past then lo and behold he gets caught lying about Chris Pincher.
No-one in the real world cares about Chris Pincher.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Indeed.
Slow walking a a demonstration of basic capability from 2012, so that it slips past 2025 (Themis) is just pathetic.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Dunno. Playing senators off against each other works for the DoD….
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Absolutely. There are signs that some might even be starting to recognise that.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
Johnson shouldn't have resigned. Brining him down was a gift to Putin delivered by useful idiots.
He brought himself down, a month earlier he promised the party that the lies were in the past then lo and behold he gets caught lying about Chris Pincher.
No-one in the real world cares about Chris Pincher.
Yes they do, it’s about integrity, look we know you will excuse sexual assault when Trump does it, but the average person hates that kind of behaviour.
Ask yourself why Boris Johnson’s rating ended at Corbyn at GE2019 levels.
It's worth re-stating, amongst all the wailings of those with buyers' remorse from their folly of voting Labour just 20 weeks ago today, most British Governments which fail do so because of the failure of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor or, more accurately, the tension between the Prime Minister's office and HM Treasury.
Chancellors are either technocrats with financial management skills and no political ambition (Lawson and Darling would be good examples) or politicians with no financial management skills and political ambition (you can all think of examples). Beyond that, there is the degree to which the Chancellor becomes the "prisoner" of the Treasury or whether they retain a scintilla of independent thought.
The other role of the Chancellor is to be a human shield for the occupant of No.10. Since MacMillan sacked Birch as part of the "little local difficulties" in 1958, it's been almost de rigueur for Prime Ministers in political trouble to get rid of their Chancellor in an attempt to appease the angry voters - Selwyn Lloyd, James Callaghan, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont to name but four but others have been forced out.
Chancellors are rarely popular and can be cast aside with a degree of aplomb especially if not perceived to be a political rival - is Reeves a serious alternative to Starmer, was Annelise Dodds? When (not if) Reeves is removed that will be a sign the sense of crisis has reached the Prime Minister's doorstep.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Dunno. Playing senators off against each other works for the DoD….
But that's why SpaceX is so successful, they have short circuited all of that nonsense and now NASA and the DoD are able to tell those senators to stfu and just give the contract to Elon Musk because what he does works. I don't see there ever being an equivalent in the EU because if an Italian company has the expertise the French will veto any contract that doesn't involve them.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Dunno. Playing senators off against each other works for the DoD….
But that's why SpaceX is so successful, they have short circuited all of that nonsense and now NASA and the DoD are able to tell those senators to stfu and just give the contract to Elon Musk because what he does works. I don't see there ever being an equivalent in the EU because if an Italian company has the expertise the French will veto any contract that doesn't involve them.
It does make you wonder whether Airbus would be even more successful with a sane production line, for example.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed. ETA and her LinkedIn profile is not necessarily the same as her CV.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Dunno. Playing senators off against each other works for the DoD….
But that's why SpaceX is so successful, they have short circuited all of that nonsense and now NASA and the DoD are able to tell those senators to stfu and just give the contract to Elon Musk because what he does works. I don't see there ever being an equivalent in the EU because if an Italian company has the expertise the French will veto any contract that doesn't involve them.
It would be ironic if Musk's DOGE came for NASA and stopped it issuing contracts to SpaceX to fly to Mars. Some Federal subsidies are better than others.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
As far as I know there is no obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have his or her CV scrutinised by you.
Almost 1m under-25s are not in work or studying, new figures show, underlining the scale of the worklessness crisis as the Government plots a crackdown on benefits.
The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training – Neets – climbed to 946,000 in the three months to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It marks the highest number of workless 16 to 24-year-olds since 2014, and is up by 9pc from 871,000 a year earlier. The number of young Neets has risen by almost one quarter since the pandemic. Some 13.2pc of all 16 to 24-year-olds are now classed as Neets, which is also the highest percentage in a decade.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
As far as I know there is no obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have his or her CV scrutinised by you.
So who is the checker of the CV of the Exchequer? And when they quit do they become the new ex-checker?
They should just have bought one of the new Turkish designs and fitted their own avionics.
Haven't the EU just begun funding a "European competitor" to SpaceX? It seems destined to become a boondoggle for European aerospace companies for a rocket that will never launch.
Now that is likely a strategic imperative for Europe. For now, they are vulnerable to a military communications and navigation blackout, should a US President turn hostile on a whim.
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly. Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Surely the primary issue with the way the EU does stuff is they biggest argument is where and how the money gets spent rather than how the end product will operate and getting the right people involved from the beginning. All of these projects are doomed to failure until there's a focus on the product rather than which country gets what money/jobs.
Dunno. Playing senators off against each other works for the DoD….
But that's why SpaceX is so successful, they have short circuited all of that nonsense and now NASA and the DoD are able to tell those senators to stfu and just give the contract to Elon Musk because what he does works. I don't see there ever being an equivalent in the EU because if an Italian company has the expertise the French will veto any contract that doesn't involve them.
It would be ironic if Musk's DOGE came for NASA and stopped it issuing contracts to SpaceX to fly to Mars. Some Federal subsidies are better than others.
There are no current NASA contracts with SpaceX to fly anything to Mars.
One recent contract from NASA to SpaceX was to use Falcon Heavy to send the Europa Clipper space probe on its way to.... Europa. The estimate is that it was $2 Billion cheaper than using the SLS rocket. Plus the vibrational environment was lower (no solids), so further money was saved on not needing to harder the Europa Clipper.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
As far as I know there is no obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have his or her CV scrutinised by you.
Almost 1m under-25s are not in work or studying, new figures show, underlining the scale of the worklessness crisis as the Government plots a crackdown on benefits.
The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training – Neets – climbed to 946,000 in the three months to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It marks the highest number of workless 16 to 24-year-olds since 2014, and is up by 9pc from 871,000 a year earlier. The number of young Neets has risen by almost one quarter since the pandemic. Some 13.2pc of all 16 to 24-year-olds are now classed as Neets, which is also the highest percentage in a decade.
There was an article, the other day, about the full scale collapse in educational attendance among some groups. Parents not sending their children to school. This has surged since the pandemic. Some of it is related to a massive surge in anxiety among young children. But a lot is parents simply not valuing education.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
It's not about popularity. It's more to do with the ICC being more political than most courts, Once he goes off on this route it's only a matter of time before he's going to get bitten on the butt. It shows Starmer hasnt got the common sense to look past a legal problem.
Almost 1m under-25s are not in work or studying, new figures show, underlining the scale of the worklessness crisis as the Government plots a crackdown on benefits.
The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training – Neets – climbed to 946,000 in the three months to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It marks the highest number of workless 16 to 24-year-olds since 2014, and is up by 9pc from 871,000 a year earlier. The number of young Neets has risen by almost one quarter since the pandemic. Some 13.2pc of all 16 to 24-year-olds are now classed as Neets, which is also the highest percentage in a decade.
There was an article, the other day, about the full scale collapse in educational attendance among some groups. Parents not sending their children to school. This has surged since the pandemic. Some of it is related to a massive surge in anxiety among young children. But a lot is parents simply not valuing education.
The BBC ran an article the other day about how exclusions had increased with their spin being it was schools / teachers not understanding SEND kids.
Speaking to teachers I know they say the kids have been far worse behaved and inability to focus on doing any work since COVID such they have now deployed much stricter behaviour policies and they have to be particular tough on the kids coming from primary school.
Doesn't bode well for another 5-10 years down the line if schools can't turn it around.
Almost 1m under-25s are not in work or studying, new figures show, underlining the scale of the worklessness crisis as the Government plots a crackdown on benefits.
The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training – Neets – climbed to 946,000 in the three months to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It marks the highest number of workless 16 to 24-year-olds since 2014, and is up by 9pc from 871,000 a year earlier. The number of young Neets has risen by almost one quarter since the pandemic. Some 13.2pc of all 16 to 24-year-olds are now classed as Neets, which is also the highest percentage in a decade.
There was an article, the other day, about the full scale collapse in educational attendance among some groups. Parents not sending their children to school. This has surged since the pandemic. Some of it is related to a massive surge in anxiety among young children. But a lot is parents simply not valuing education.
It was always true that a lot of parents didn't value education. What they took from the pandemic was that government didn't value education either.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
It's not about popularity. It's more to do with the ICC being more political than most courts, Once he goes off on this route it's only a matter of time before he's going to get bitten on the butt. It shows Starmer hasnt got the common sense to look past a legal problem.
History has shown that things always improve when lawyers get involved.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
It's not about popularity. It's more to do with the ICC being more political than most courts, Once he goes off on this route it's only a matter of time before he's going to get bitten on the butt. It shows Starmer hasnt got the common sense to look past a legal problem.
History has shown that things always improve when lawyers get involved.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Surely there are other criteria, otherwise you'd have to say that Estelle Morris was the best minister of the last 50 years.
Does it become moot because he would have diplomatic immunity if travelling as PM?
Not according to Geoffrey Robertson. Though apparently any action against Netanyahu is anti Semitic according to the Israelis so going off Starmers past actions that wiill certainly be a get out of jail free card with this government
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
Does it become moot because he would have diplomatic immunity if travelling as PM?
Not according to Geoffrey Robertson. Though apparently any action against Netanyahu is anti Semitic according to the Israelis so going off Starmers past actions that wiill certainly be a get out of jail free card with this government
You're a Mossad agent and this is how you try to cover your tracks.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Perhaps we could sue Johnson or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office?
When I was at Goldman Sachs in the late 1990s, there was a lady who had worked her way from temp to secretary to financial analyst to associate.
Then one day she was called into the office of the partner in charge of equity research and fired for cause.
She'd lied about her qualification on the CV she had given the temping agency.
We were all a bit shocked: had she not been effectively promoted three times based solely on her ability, and nothing to do with her CV? But it didn't matter. Integrity is simply more important. If you can't trust someone's word, they can't work for you.
When I was at Goldman Sachs in the late 1990s, there was a lady who had worked her way from temp to secretary to financial analyst to associate.
Then one day she was called into the office of the partner in charge of equity research and fired for cause.
She'd lied about her qualification on the CV she had given the temping agency.
We were all a bit shocked: had she not been effectively promoted three times based solely on her ability, and nothing to do with her CV? But it didn't matter. Integrity is simply more important. If you can't trust someone's word, they can't work for you.
FFS they.re bankers, what has integrity got to do with it ?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
As a Labour Party supporter your defence is that Labour leaders are no worse than Boris Johnson? I know that you are a little intellectually challenged but this is not really a very high bar of integrity. I did loathe, and still do loathe Boris Johnson. He is a serial liar and a clown. I was rather hoping that while we could predict the stupidity of an incoming Labour government, we could at least hope that they might have a higher level of honesty than their predecessors. Reeves has committed fraud by false representation. She should resign.
Labour supporters that do not agree with this have no moral high ground than those who defended Johnson.
Netanhayu has had more than enough benefit of the doubt. He has a right to lead his government in war. He does not have the right to implement policies which are war crimes. And forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. Consequences follow.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
It's not a profession or even a trade. At best it is a description. "housing market sizing" sounds like classic economist jobbing.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
That was not the only infringement. If it were it would simply be a modest embellishment, which while possibly a little dishonest would not fall into the fraudulent category
Netanhayu has had more than enough benefit of the doubt. He has a right to lead his government in war. He does not have the right to implement policies which are war crimes. And forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. Consequences follow.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
Time will tell if Starmer has called this right but he's aligning himself with some strange bedfellows and at some point they will turn on his government.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
I suspect the Treasury wonks love low thresholds because they drag far more people into taxes....
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
All politicians lie. But I'd say it's probably not a good idea for someone who has lied about being an economist becoming Chancellor.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
All politicians lie. But I'd say it's probably not a good idea for someone who has lied about being an economist becoming Chancellor.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
From £140bn a year to £180bn before last budget.
Perhaps that was the real big lie of Brexit - that the NHS could be fixed with more money.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
That was not the only infringement. If it were it would simply be a modest embellishment, which while possibly a little dishonest would not fall into the fraudulent category
I don't subscribe to the telegraph. What exactly is the lie she has told?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
And in real terms?
Edit:
Just perused the web:
'The Long Term Plan funding settlement set out annual average real-terms increases to the NHS budget for day-to-day spending of 3.4% a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24, measured against the GDP inflation metric, with a profile that saw slightly faster funding growth in the first and last years, and translated into average annual increases of 3% on the NHS inflation measure.'
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
That was not the only infringement. If it were it would simply be a modest embellishment, which while possibly a little dishonest would not fall into the fraudulent category
I don't subscribe to the telegraph. What exactly is the lie she has told?
Comments
Circa £100k/annum for care home or 24hr care at home, your £6bn is only covering 60,000 people requiring full-time care.
Google tells me there are circa 400,000 in care homes, plus all those being cared for in the community.
It's only £300pp pa has become £2-3k
Bad enough for HIM to lose his job. But IOKIYAL....
Step forward, current party chair... er... Ellie Reeves. Ah.
So encouraging new ideas now would be preferable.
Like Northern Al, I approve the social care insurance idea.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
Was trying the new ChatGPT model earlier, its worse again....although supposedly the improvements are around its making its text generation more natural (which isn't my use case).
I don't think the problem with the NHS is how it is funded.
Themis is the ESA project to build an equivalent to the F9 Grasshopper.
Which is just a test system.
ArianeGroup is very carefully trying to make sure this doesn't progress, apart from the money. While being the contractor to the project...
Like Lockheed with the X-33, they don't want reusables, and especially don't want reusables from someone else.
ESA are also funding various small rocket companies who are actually trying to launch things. Ariane complains bitterly, at intervals, that the money should go to them.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KJQctpxAqEg
They'll probably cock it up, as you predict. But there's no good technical reason they should, and it does make sense to try.
The thrust of the article I posted is not that Europe shouldn't do stuff. It's that it shouldn't cock things up so regularly.
Anything else is something of a counsel of despair.
Slow walking a a demonstration of basic capability from 2012, so that it slips past 2025 (Themis) is just pathetic.
There are signs that some might even be starting to recognise that.
Ask yourself why Boris Johnson’s rating ended at Corbyn at GE2019 levels.
It's worth re-stating, amongst all the wailings of those with buyers' remorse from their folly of voting Labour just 20 weeks ago today, most British Governments which fail do so because of the failure of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor or, more accurately, the tension between the Prime Minister's office and HM Treasury.
Chancellors are either technocrats with financial management skills and no political ambition (Lawson and Darling would be good examples) or politicians with no financial management skills and political ambition (you can all think of examples). Beyond that, there is the degree to which the Chancellor becomes the "prisoner" of the Treasury or whether they retain a scintilla of independent thought.
The other role of the Chancellor is to be a human shield for the occupant of No.10. Since MacMillan sacked Birch as part of the "little local difficulties" in 1958, it's been almost de rigueur for Prime Ministers in political trouble to get rid of their Chancellor in an attempt to appease the angry voters - Selwyn Lloyd, James Callaghan, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont to name but four but others have been forced out.
Chancellors are rarely popular and can be cast aside with a degree of aplomb especially if not perceived to be a political rival - is Reeves a serious alternative to Starmer, was Annelise Dodds? When (not if) Reeves is removed that will be a sign the sense of crisis has reached the Prime Minister's doorstep.
[400-700nm]
Cant help but think this is a mistake
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/21/netanyahu-arrest-warrant-issued-live/
The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training – Neets – climbed to 946,000 in the three months to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It marks the highest number of workless 16 to 24-year-olds since 2014, and is up by 9pc from 871,000 a year earlier. The number of young Neets has risen by almost one quarter since the pandemic. Some 13.2pc of all 16 to 24-year-olds are now classed as Neets, which is also the highest percentage in a decade.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/21/1m-under-25s-out-of-work-labour-benefits-crackdown/
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, something the majority of Britons (54%) supported when asked in the summer
https://x.com/yougov/status/1859572323851915532?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
One recent contract from NASA to SpaceX was to use Falcon Heavy to send the Europa Clipper space probe on its way to.... Europa. The estimate is that it was $2 Billion cheaper than using the SLS rocket. Plus the vibrational environment was lower (no solids), so further money was saved on not needing to harder the Europa Clipper.
Speaking to teachers I know they say the kids have been far worse behaved and inability to focus on doing any work since COVID such they have now deployed much stricter behaviour policies and they have to be particular tough on the kids coming from primary school.
Doesn't bode well for another 5-10 years down the line if schools can't turn it around.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
Went to the zoo yesterday and they had a ciabatta in a cage.
It was bread in captivity.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/21/majority-back-british-museum-exhibit-on-transatlantic-slave-trade
Shadow Policing minister Chris Philip (at 24m40s) calls for the Non-Crime Hate Incident guidance to be “urgently rewritten”.
I will give you 3 guesses who was Policing minister when the current version was written.
https://x.com/mikeysmith/status/1859200344464441575
Then one day she was called into the office of the partner in charge of equity research and fired for cause.
She'd lied about her qualification on the CV she had given the temping agency.
We were all a bit shocked: had she not been effectively promoted three times based solely on her ability, and nothing to do with her CV? But it didn't matter. Integrity is simply more important. If you can't trust someone's word, they can't work for you.
Labour supporters that do not agree with this have no moral high ground than those who defended Johnson.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/11/21/the-budget-a-missed-opportunity/
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/21/allison-pearson-police-tweet-no-action/
I'm not an economist.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
Edit:
Just perused the web:
'The Long Term Plan funding settlement set out annual average real-terms increases to the NHS budget for day-to-day spending of 3.4% a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24, measured against the GDP inflation metric, with a profile that saw slightly faster funding growth in the first and last years, and translated into average annual increases of 3% on the NHS inflation measure.'
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/nhs-spending-plans-and-reality-over-the-past-10-years
Edit - Yeah I should have phrased that better, Matt Gaetz withdraws his name to be the next Attorney General.