Champagne socialism – politicalbetting.com

System · February 15

Champagne socialism – politicalbetting.com

It is clear that somebody has it in for Rachel Reeves and the story about her CV and her past conduct continues to snowball, the allegations made in today’s Times newspaper is a new addition to the allegations against her.

Read the full story here

rcs1000 · February 15

Given Pulp is touring, then I thought this was appropriate to post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b7DgOeMnW4

IanB2 · February 15

Second! Kemi can only dream.

Meanwhile, Applebaum on the war now declared on the US civil service - worth a read (£ or free article):

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/doge-civil-servant-purge/681671/

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

Drip drip drip....I think the BBC have more as they are doing that classic writing pieces about pieces, recapping the denial as if they are ready to add a spanner in the works.

IanB2 · February 15

It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.

TimS · February 15

Starting to look fatal.
If she’d had a stellar first few months as chancellor things would be very different, but she’s crossed over from asset to liability quite quickly.

Leon · February 15

FrancisUrquhart said:
Drip drip drip....I think the BBC have more as they are doing that classic writing pieces about pieces, recapping the denial as if they are ready to add a spanner in the works.

It does feel concerted, and potentially fatal, now (for her career as COTE, I hasten to add)

The Lesbian Worzel Gummidge might have to go

If Starmer is as ruthless as everyone says then he needs to seize these opportunities to reboot himself properly:

1. Sack Reeves, blaming her lapses in accounting, nothing to do with her dreadful economic leadership - but thereby enabling him to steer the economy in a new way

2. Sack Hermer. He is hated by so many, even on his own side, he is an endlessly rich target for the right, getting rid of him means Starmer can dump the Chagos mess

3. Dump Ed Miliband, of course

4. Dump Bridget Phillipson, obvs

Do all those and get better replacements and Starmer may - MAY - be able to restart properly and claw his way out of the whole he has so vigorously dug for himself. And better to do it now when the damage won't be lethally near an election

Chris · February 15

It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?

Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....

NickPalmer · February 15

IanB2 said:
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.

I can't summon up much interest in who said what in 2008, and I say that as someone with no particular affection for the Chancellor. I don't think the story will go anywhere. It's not political enough - unexpected revelations about what she said about tax or spending could well be damaging, but I don't really care about an expenses claim 17 years ago.

Leon · February 15

NickPalmer said:

IanB2 said:
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
I can't summon up much interest in who said what in 2008, and I say that as someone with no particular affection for the Chancellor. I don't think the story will go anywhere. It's not political enough - unexpected revelations about what she said about tax or spending could well be damaging, but I don't really care about an expenses claim 17 years ago.

That's it. She's doomed. New thread?

williamglenn · February 15

Some parallels with Louise Haigh in the latest allegation.

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

What is as interesting is who keeps feeding all these damaging stories. The private Labour WhatsApp groups, the tales of people poor behaviour in jobs many years ago.

Leon · February 15

The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd

Malmesbury · February 15

FrancisUrquhart said:
What is as interesting is who keeps feeding all these damaging stories. The private Labour WhatsApp groups, the tales of people poor behaviour in jobs many years ago.

It is curious that some of the dark arts types from New Labour reappear.

And then a Labour politician starts to get briefed against with a steady drip of allegations. The style of it…

Theuniondivvie · February 15

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd

That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?

rcs1000 · February 15

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd

The World Health Organisation has it in for Reeves???

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

Malmesbury said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
What is as interesting is who keeps feeding all these damaging stories. The private Labour WhatsApp groups, the tales of people poor behaviour in jobs many years ago.
It is curious that some of the dark arts types from New Labour reappear.

And then a Labour politician starts to get briefed against with a steady drip of allegations. The style of it…

I am sure it is a total coincidence. Who is getting the tips off is interesting to.

williamglenn · February 15

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?

How many people are aware of his comments about pushing people under trains?

Leon · February 15

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?

He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have to read them on X through darkened glass

algarkirk · February 15

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd

No idea, but possibly given the new financial climate caused by USA defence policy shift + the sub optimal effects of the jobs tax a new face is needed for pure political reasons. Labour has to row back on what it promised and what it has done. Reeves may not be the person. Sadly we need higher and different tax rises, on IT, NI and VAT for the boring matter of paying the bills.

Jonathan · February 15

It’s a weird story. One slightly overlooked, but weird element is that it’s a BBC investigation. Unusual move. Normally associate this sort of stuff with the press.

Fishing · February 15

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

Hmm. Could be anybody who cares about the economy or standards in public life. Or just enjoys causing trouble.

So only about 69 million suspects.

StillWaters · February 15

algarkirk said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
No idea, but possibly given the new financial climate caused by USA defence policy shift + the sub optimal effects of the jobs tax a new face is needed for pure political reasons. Labour has to row back on what it promised and what it has done. Reeves may not be the person. Sadly we need higher and different tax rises, on IT, NI and VAT for the boring matter of paying the bills.

You could probably use Trump as the excuse. Raise taxes by 40 bn, increase defence spending by 25 and pocket the rest…

Stuartinromford · February 15

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?
He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have read them on X through darkened glass

The Corbyn crew have either left, or are in internal exile.

I think I would be looking at the Labour spadocracy who had posters of Malcom Tucker and Ollie Reeder on their walls as teenagers. (Bloody Hell. The first series of TTOI was twenty years ago.)

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?
He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have read them on X through darkened glass
The Corbyn crew have either left, or are in internal exile.

I think I would be looking at the Labour spadocracy who had posters of Malcom Tucker and Ollie Reeder on their walls as teenagers. (Bloody Hell. The first series of TTOI was twenty years ago.)

Never been anything as good to replace TTOI.

Theuniondivvie · February 15

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?
He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have to read them on X through darkened glass

Strange how perceptions differ, to me he looks EXACTLY the type.

Malmesbury · February 15

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
The World Health Organisation has it in for Reeves???

It’s a complex thing. You see she was involved the faction of Bilderberg Group within the WHO who intersect with the representatives of the Trilateral Commission and FEMA.

They fell out with the group involving the NSA and DIA over Boris Johnson hiding the COVID deaths by storing all the dead bodies in the basement of a pizza place in Soho. Which was actually carried out by the Lizard Men in people suits.

So it is actually a faction within the World Health Organisation.

boulay · February 15

It was interesting on the Today programme yesterday where the Labour minister they were interviewing spewed out the Reeves defence which itself was bs, claiming that the Head of HR from HBOS had said that any investigation would have crossed her desk and didn’t so nothing to see here.

This defence was then torn apart by the bbc journo immediately after, wasn’t head of HBOS HR, they wouldn’t have seen the investigation anyway unless there was action taken, leaving mutually would spike any investigation etc et.

The takedown of the defence was quite simple and brutal and I thought that would be that until the headlines followed and were lead with “Labour minister says that there was no investigation and head of HR said Rachel is wonderful” which just seemed like a perfect position for the Beeb now to have another story if Reeves has to go and there was shenanigans then the story will roll on to Labour lying to try and defend her and the minister walked into a trap by telling those lies and trying to bluff through it.

I would be surprised if this doesn’t bring her down - Keir won’t want this bad smell and it’s gives a chance to reset with a more positive message with a new smiley face in the Exchequer rather than the shifty foghorn currently in place.

Edit to add that Ministers and Lab MPs won’t like it if they feel they are being forced to publicly defend her with potentially untrue lines so support will bleed out.

pigeon · February 15

I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.

Foxy · February 15

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?

Yes, it's not coincidence that all the names being smeared by the latest reshuffle talk are females with possible leadership ambitions.

I reckon you are on the right track. Or it could be Starmer himself.

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

A reminder that politics is a dirty business....

williamglenn · February 15

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
The World Health Organisation has it in for Reeves???
It’s a complex thing. You see she was involved the faction of Bilderberg Group within the WHO who intersect with the representatives of the Trilateral Commission and FEMA.

They fell out with the group involving the NSA and DIA over Boris Johnson hiding the COVID deaths by storing all the dead bodies in the basement of a pizza place in Soho. Which was actually carried out by the Lizard Men in people suits.

So it is actually a faction within the World Health Organisation.

Starmer must have tipped off Trump about it. They must be working together the battle the global deep state.

IanB2 · February 15

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....

and that she subsequently made a few 'errors' in presenting her CV that just happened to give the impression that she'd been longer at the BoE, and therefore not then at another employer, than was actually the case....

FrancisUrquhart · February 15

IanB2 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
Its also a bit strange she suddenly left her job a couple of weeks (along was others) after this complaint she didn't know about was raised....
and that she subsequently made a few 'errors' in presenting her CV that just happened to give the impression that she'd been longer at the BoE, and therefore not then at another employer, than was actually the case....

Very careless.

Sunil_Prasannan · February 15

Hope @TheScreamingEagles has a nice holiday!

rkrkrk · February 15

Must admit I find this absolutely absurd. Alleged expenses infractions from 15 years ago is news?
Reminds me of the attempts to do in Angela Rayner.

I think Starmer has a clear line and when mimisters cross it he bins them. This isn't close.

rcs1000 · February 15

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?
He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have read them on X through darkened glass
The Corbyn crew have either left, or are in internal exile.

I think I would be looking at the Labour spadocracy who had posters of Malcom Tucker and Ollie Reeder on their walls as teenagers. (Bloody Hell. The first series of TTOI was twenty years ago.)
Never been anything as good to replace TTOI.

The phrase "lubricated horse cock" has entered the lexicon thanks to Malcolm Tucker.

kamski · February 15

Amusing to read the absurd hypocrisy of @Leon on the previous thread

StillWaters · February 15

rkrkrk said:
Must admit I find this absolutely absurd. Alleged expenses infractions from 15 years ago is news?
Reminds me of the attempts to do in Angela Rayner.

I think Starmer has a clear line and when mimisters cross it he bins them. This isn't close.

What is alleged isn’t expenses infractions”. It’s theft and fraud.

Theuniondivvie · February 15

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd
That suggests career interests rather than antipathy,

How’s Wes with numbers?
He doesn't look the type, but do they ever?!

As @FrancisUrquhart notes, we should also recall the WhatsApp revelations. Taken together it feels like there are dangerous spies deep in Labour, which should worry them. Embittered Corbynites is my guess. The Far Left is vicious, and angry - you have read them on X through darkened glass
The Corbyn crew have either left, or are in internal exile.

I think I would be looking at the Labour spadocracy who had posters of Malcom Tucker and Ollie Reeder on their walls as teenagers. (Bloody Hell. The first series of TTOI was twenty years ago.)
Never been anything as good to replace TTOI.
The phrase "lubricated horse cock" has entered the lexicon thanks to Malcolm Tucker.

The lexicon will have been grateful that it was at least lubricated.

SandyRentool · February 15

IanB2 said:
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.

Surely if her ambition was to enter public life, she'd want to stay squeaky clean?

bondegezou · February 15

Conservative by-election gain from Green

https://x.com/britainelects/status/1890378984564687207

Scott_xP · February 15

I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...

Ratters · February 15

Being chancellor is a very important economic job that goes well beyond being 'just' politics.

Replacing Reeves should be like a big company replacing its CFO. You only do it when you have a ready replacement who have high confidence will be better. And any replacement will take time to understand the brief.

From my perspective the stories so far fall short of what would make Starmer want to get rid of Reeves unless he has ulterior motives for doing so and has a preferred replacement lined up.

I would probably just favour stability and use her relative weakness to push policy in whatever direction Starmer favours.

Leon · February 15

An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker

bondegezou · February 15

As it got lost in the tail end of the last thread, @viewcode , here are some AI systems that are not LLMs:

Omron ECG monitor, https://giftshop.bhf.org.uk/omron-complete-blood-pressure-monitor-ecg

Aiforia Breast Cancer Suite, https://www.aiforia.com/breast-cancer-ai

Spotify recommendations, https://www.spotify.com/us/safetyandprivacy/understanding-recommendations

Wysa, https://www.wysa.com/ai-cbt

WolframAlpha, https://www.wolframalpha.com/

SHRDLU, https://patrickvanbergen.com/blocks-world/

TMYCIN, https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~novak/tmycin.html

Perseverance, https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/

Chestnut, https://www.chessnutech.com/

Scott_xP · February 15

@ElizabethBangs
Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs.
But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.

RobD · February 15

Scott_xP said:
@ElizabethBangs
Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs.
But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.

Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?

Stuartinromford · February 15

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker

Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.

squareroot2 · February 15

There is an error in the Title of this thread. It's not someone who has got it in for Reeves. For starters, there are about 10 million.pensioners who have lost their winter fuel allowance whilst Reeves has her heating expensed by the taxpayer... at least 3000 quid a year.
I hope she gets sacked, I really do.

dunham · February 15

bondegezou said:
Conservative by-election gain from Green

https://x.com/britainelects/status/1890378984564687207

Although there was a swing from Green to Conservative, the result is actually a Conservative gain from Independent (previously 34.1% of the vote).

moonshine · February 15

StillWaters said:

rkrkrk said:
Must admit I find this absolutely absurd. Alleged expenses infractions from 15 years ago is news?
Reminds me of the attempts to do in Angela Rayner.

I think Starmer has a clear line and when mimisters cross it he bins them. This isn't close.
What is alleged isn’t expenses infractions”. It’s theft and fraud.

It’s bad and all. But it’s not at the same level as someone surprising a man with a cake in a room.

FF43 · February 15

My impression is the BBC decided to do some investigative journalism. Journalists don't get the chance to do much of that these days. They didn't find much on Rachel Reeves but decided to splash on it anyway.

While it might not be great if the colleague didn't get the champagne (if that's what happened), Lloyds Banking Group are not likely to open a disciplinary process on Reeves fifteen years after she left the bank.

Leon · February 15

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.

But is it ok to scroll your phone during the silence?

If it is then that’s do-able

Foxy · February 15

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.

I found out the other day that there are 4 Quaker MPs, 2 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green.

The Green one is the co-leader, Carla Denyer, who is also a vegan and bisexual.

I am sure @Leon would fit right in.

Leon · February 15

kamski said:
Amusing to read the absurd hypocrisy of @Leon on the previous thread

You’re welcome

bondegezou · February 15

Foxy said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.
I found out the other day that there are 4 Quaker MPs, 2 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green.

The Green one is the co-leader, Carla Denyer, who is also a vegan and bisexual.

I am sure @Leon would fit right in.

More Quaker facts!

First Quaker MP elected was John Archdale (1698) – but blocked by law.
First Quaker MP to take his seat was Joseph Pease (1832)
The second Quaker MP in Plt was John Bright (1843)
The first Quaker MP in the Cabinet was John Bright (1869)
Were 9 Quaker MPs elected in 1906 (Liberals)
Were 9 Quaker MPs elected in 1945 (mostly Labour)
Was only 1 Quaker MP elected In 1997 (Conservative, Richard Body)
Were 3 Quaker MPs elected in 2015 (two Labour, one Conservative, all women)
Were two Quaker MPs elected in 2017 and 2019 (both Labour, both women)
Were 6 Quaker MPs elected in 2024

Pulpstar · February 15

Very obvious Reeves was ""managed out" of HBOS

rottenborough · February 15

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...

Trump 2.0 seems determined to test Adam Smith's: "There's a great deal of ruin in a nation".

Stuartinromford · February 15

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.
But is it ok to scroll your phone during the silence?

If it is then that’s do-able

You might be better off with something more liturgical. Then you can claim to be looking up the words of the service.

rottenborough · February 15

"What is it to Trump if Ukraine joins Nato, since he implies his own country is on the way out of it?"

Charles Moore.

Stereodog · February 15

squareroot2 said:
There is an error in the Title of this thread. It's not someone who has got it in for Reeves. For starters, there are about 10 million.pensioners who have lost their winter fuel allowance whilst Reeves has her heating expensed by the taxpayer... at least 3000 quid a year.
I hope she gets sacked, I really do.

Although for strict accuracy that figure is for all utilities and over half is for her constituency office. I think it's a tired trope that politicians shouldn't do X because they are allowed to claim for something similar.

Big_G_NorthWales · February 15

Good morning

I doubt this will bring down Reeves unless Starmer wants an excuse, but also why the BBC and who is behind this ?

This is the BBC online comment

BBC News - What we've learned about Rachel Reeves's expenses - and the Labour response
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvmg924nk1o

williamglenn · February 15

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...

Have they sacked anyone directly?

eek · February 15

Stereodog said:

squareroot2 said:
There is an error in the Title of this thread. It's not someone who has got it in for Reeves. For starters, there are about 10 million.pensioners who have lost their winter fuel allowance whilst Reeves has her heating expensed by the taxpayer... at least 3000 quid a year.
I hope she gets sacked, I really do.
Although for strict accuracy that figure is for all utilities and over half is for her constituency office. I think it's a tired trope that politicians shouldn't do X because they are allowed to claim for something similar.

Yep - her office staff needs heating.

The other half is because she needs a second home to work in London / or her constituency and no MP should be required to cover the costs of the place they need only because of their job...

Pulpstar · February 15

IanB2 said:
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.

Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out

Daveyboy1961 · February 15

Foxy said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.
I found out the other day that there are 4 Quaker MPs, 2 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green.

The Green one is the co-leader, Carla Denyer, who is also a vegan and bisexual.

I am sure @Leon would fit right in.

Does Leon like porridge?

eek · February 15

Pulpstar said:
Very obvious Reeves was ""managed out" of HBOS

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o

It seems the audit investigation finished in April 2009 - at which point the disciplinary phase would begin.

So I think the answer is she left before that was completed to avoid being fired....

AnneJGP · February 15

pigeon said:
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.

At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.

I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.

Good morning, everyone.

Fairliered · February 15

FF43 said:
My impression is the BBC decided to do some investigative journalism. Journalists don't get the chance to do much of that these days. They didn't find much on Rachel Reeves but decided to splash on it anyway.

While it might not be great if the colleague didn't get the champagne (if that's what happened), Lloyds Banking Group are not likely to open a disciplinary process on Reeves fifteen years after she left the bank.

Has Reeves threatened the BBC’s funding? It’s not like them to put their head above the parapet. They usually get others to do their dirty work.

Pulpstar · February 15

eek said:

Pulpstar said:
Very obvious Reeves was ""managed out" of HBOS
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o

It seems the audit investigation finished in April 2009 - at which point the disciplinary phase would begin.

So I think the answer is she left before that was completed to avoid being fired....

Another question is was this all the correct tax paid on this stuff. It is beyond the trivial limits as the BBC points out

IanB2 · February 15

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker

You should join. Go along to their meetings, when they're trying to plan their campaign or pick a candidate, and keep banging on about AI, or how covid got started....

No_Offence_Alan · February 15

Fishing said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

Hmm. Could be anybody who cares about the economy or standards in public life. Or just enjoys causing trouble.

So only about 69 million suspects.

It is about standards in the private sector. No wonder the country is unproductive if shareholders' money can be spent on those kind of "expenses".

theProle · February 15

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Drip drip drip....I think the BBC have more as they are doing that classic writing pieces about pieces, recapping the denial as if they are ready to add a spanner in the works.
It does feel concerted, and potentially fatal, now (for her career as COTE, I hasten to add)

The Lesbian Worzel Gummidge might have to go

If Starmer is as ruthless as everyone says then he needs to seize these opportunities to reboot himself properly:

1. Sack Reeves, blaming her lapses in accounting, nothing to do with her dreadful economic leadership - but thereby enabling him to steer the economy in a new way

2. Sack Hermer. He is hated by so many, even on his own side, he is an endlessly rich target for the right, getting rid of him means Starmer can dump the Chagos mess

3. Dump Ed Miliband, of course

4. Dump Bridget Phillipson, obvs

Do all those and get better replacements and Starmer may - MAY - be able to restart properly and claw his way out of the whole he has so vigorously dug for himself. And better to do it now when the damage won't be lethally near an election

The problem for Starmer is twofold. The minor problem is that sacking your Chancellor isn't a good look (although he is lucky to have a pretext!).

My critically, it's not clear he's got competent replacements available. He can hardly make West Streeting Chancellor, Education Secretary, Attorney General and Health Secretary all in one.

Sunil_Prasannan · February 15

Daveyboy1961 said:

Foxy said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:
An encouraging piece in the guardian for all PBers

Explains how Reform are finally getting their act together. And could really break through this time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

I wonder if I might join. I’ve never joined a political party - I despise them - but maybe the coming Battle of Britain is too important for my daintified eschewals

It’s either that or become a Quaker
Quakers are really, really into silence.

Just saying.

Which is more than Quakers would.
I found out the other day that there are 4 Quaker MPs, 2 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green.

The Green one is the co-leader, Carla Denyer, who is also a vegan and bisexual.

I am sure @Leon would fit right in.

Does Leon like porridge?

"Going Straight", surely.

IanB2 · February 15

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:
It looks to me as if Reeves was always only interested in politics and didn't give her career at HBOS much priority, nor the ethics required for doing that job much attention. Now it's all come back to bite her.
Yes, from reading the stories it appears to me that she viewed the job at HBOS as a bit beneath her and was going to get out of it what she could, reading between the lines I think her bosses wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible but didn't have enough for gross misconduct so managed her out

Some of the BBC stuff is quite damning - and given that much of it came from colleagues complaints when she worked there, suggests that she's never been very popular with her work colleagues, which doubtless also explains why this story is re-emerging now.

A detailed six-page whistleblowing complaint was submitted, with dozens of pages of supporting documents including emails, receipts and memos. It accused Reeves and two other managers, one of whom was her boss, of using the bank's money to "fund a lifestyle", with spending on events, taxis and gifts, including for each other. We have seen these documents and spoken to more than 20 people, many of whom were former colleagues.

She's another of those - just like Streeting - who were working toward a political career since they left school. We'd be better off with people who have had a real career for a decade or two, before going into politics.

numbertwelve · February 15

As I said yesterday I’m not sure where this is all leading but it does feel like a steady drip-drip which will continue to undermine her.

Some interesting thoughts on here about where this might be coming from

Reeves is the biggest weak link in the government at the moment and I would suggest the source of a lot of its problems. She needed to be able to convincingly sell its economic policy and she has shown herself to be incapable of doing so, while making poor choices.

It would cause a short term hit to Starmer if he was forced to lose her but I think it might help him in the long run. Get someone in who is a better media performer and able to articulate a vision.

JosiasJessop · February 15

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?

What do you think?

williamglenn · February 15

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?

I think not, Josias.

pigeon · February 15

https://news.sky.com/story/health-anxiety-not-emergencies-clogging-up-aande-doctors-warn-13308195

Posted purely because I found it quite illuminating. The statistic about the surge in demand for GP appointments since COVID is quite something.

JosiasJessop · February 15

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.

Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.

But here's a story. There's plenty more on Google:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html

MoonRabbit · February 15

Chagos Deal - big development to report. Any day I expect this EXACT sentence from Trump: “it’s a very bad deal, it’s very bad, but we are sorting it out. Mauritius will get a deal, but we will sort it out first, and everyone will love it after we do that.”

What has just happened? FT reported in January Starmer Government will wait for Trump’s approval before signing. Modi met Trump for working visit this week BBC reported “both sides comfortable continuing Biden-era collaborations, in tech and defence”. India courted by the West as partner in countering China, experts say Trump's second presidency will continue this, not lecture India on human rights as last administration did.

India is HUGE fan of UKs Chagos surrender. Chagos was negotiated with Mauritius by both Conservative and Labour government with Biden administration and Modi’s government “inputting”. Yesterday, after meeting Modi - Trump placed his own negotiator overtly in the middle of the ongoing negotiating room. This makes me inform you for sure, at some point Trump will instruct Starmer to sign it. In fact i am convinced Trumps order is not just sign it, UK must frontload millions in payments to Mauritius for Trump and Modi’s newly elected friend Navin Ramgoolam to play with.

Surely Trumps intervention in negotiations will not just be front load millions for Ramgoolam, but all those security fears fettled away too? Key item in the deal to watch for, restrictions on fishing rights around Garcia. Otherwise how will we really know it not just rebranding same deal they said was bad?

Aside from Chinese spy equipment in simple junks, defining reason UK must NOT sign this deal is a legal precedent created that will be used by other states, backed in gaming the system by gang of UK belligerents who sponsored Mauritius, (Russia, India, etc), to make predatory claims on British territory everywhere, where it’s difficult now to argue precedent applies to Chagos, not Cyprus nor Falklands. But UK colonialism on retreat not so much a Chagos deal breaker for our Indian and America friends, for them it’s actually incentive to ratify! They are anti UK colonial power except, brazen hypocrisy, rare instances like Chagos UK retaining something benefits them!
A tricky, unacknowledgeable war Britain fights alone last 100 years.

A key item to watch for - giving in on Trump and Modi’s bullying for upfront millions for Ramgoolam government - will prove just how hapless Labour are standing up for Britain. Even £90M a year is far too much.*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78xpxpx005o

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/uks-surrender-chagos-symptom-strategic-ineptitude

*caveat is how much US chips in, in the round, that’s never overtly acknowledged.

Pulpstar · February 15

No_Offence_Alan said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

Hmm. Could be anybody who cares about the economy or standards in public life. Or just enjoys causing trouble.

So only about 69 million suspects.
It is about standards in the private sector. No wonder the country is unproductive if shareholders' money can be spent on those kind of "expenses".

I didn't have you down as one for US style employment rights but employment law here means she'd need due process as @Eek pointed - a process HBOS had started, shortly after which she left.

Pulpstar · February 15

MoonRabbit said:
Chagos Deal - big development to report. Any day I expect this EXACT sentence from Trump: “it’s a very bad deal, it’s very bad, but we are sorting it out. Mauritius will get a deal, but we will sort it out first, and everyone will love it after we do that.”

What has just happened? FT reported in January Starmer Government will wait for Trump’s approval before signing. Modi met Trump for working visit this week BBC reported “both sides comfortable continuing Biden-era collaborations, in tech and defence”. India courted by the West as partner in countering China, experts say Trump's second presidency will continue this, not lecture India on human rights as last administration did.

India is HUGE fan of UKs Chagos surrender. Chagos was negotiated with Mauritius by both Conservative and Labour government with Biden administration and Modi’s government “inputting”. Yesterday, after meeting Modi - Trump placed his own negotiator overtly in the middle of the ongoing negotiating room. This makes me inform you for sure, at some point Trump will instruct Starmer to sign it. In fact i am convinced Trumps order is not just sign it, UK must frontload millions in payments to Mauritius for Trump and Modi’s newly elected friend Navin Ramgoolam to play with.

Surely Trumps intervention in negotiations will not just be front load millions for Ramgoolam, but all those security fears fettled away too? Key item in the deal to watch for, restrictions on fishing rights around Garcia. Otherwise how will we really know it not just rebranding same deal they said was bad?

Aside from Chinese spy equipment in simple junks, defining reason UK must NOT sign this deal is a legal precedent created that will be used by other states, backed in gaming the system by gang of UK belligerents who sponsored Mauritius, (Russia, India, etc), to make predatory claims on British territory everywhere, where it’s difficult now to argue precedent applies to Chagos, not Cyprus nor Falklands. But UK colonialism on retreat not so much a Chagos deal breaker for our Indian and America friends, for them it’s actually incentive to ratify! They are anti UK colonial power except, brazen hypocrisy, rare instances like Chagos UK retaining something benefits them!
A tricky, unacknowledgeable war Britain fights alone last 100 years.

A key item to watch for - giving in on Trump and Modi’s bullying for upfront millions for Ramgoolam government - will prove just how hapless Labour are standing up for Britain. Even £90M a year is far too much.*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78xpxpx005o

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/uks-surrender-chagos-symptom-strategic-ineptitude

*caveat is how much US chips in, in the round, that’s never overtly acknowledged.

I expect Trump will try and pump us for even more cash whilst getting stronger guarantees tbh. He knows Starmer is the mark on this deal

Barnesian · February 15

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?

It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.

There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.

If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.

pigeon · February 15

AnneJGP said:

pigeon said:
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.

I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.

Good morning, everyone.

Hello Anne.

We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.

Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.

StillWaters · February 15

FF43 said:
My impression is the BBC decided to do some investigative journalism. Journalists don't get the chance to do much of that these days. They didn't find much on Rachel Reeves but decided to splash on it anyway.

While it might not be great if the colleague didn't get the champagne (if that's what happened), Lloyds Banking Group are not likely to open a disciplinary process on Reeves fifteen years after she left the bank.

So you are ok with a thief in cabinet (if proven)

williamglenn · February 15

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.

But here's a story. There's plenty more on Google:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html

The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.

Malmesbury · February 15

Barnesian said:

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.

There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.

If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.

Going after reporters for reporting things you don’t like?

Have you considered a job at the Trump Whitehouse?

OldKingCole · February 15

Good morning one and all.
I miss our usual Russian contributor. More interesting than some of what's being posted this morning.

Sean_F · February 15

pigeon said:

AnneJGP said:

pigeon said:
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.

I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.

Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.

We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.

Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.

One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.

It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.

Until the effort is made, we won't know.

MarqueeMark · February 15

boulay said:
It was interesting on the Today programme yesterday where the Labour minister they were interviewing spewed out the Reeves defence which itself was bs, claiming that the Head of HR from HBOS had said that any investigation would have crossed her desk and didn’t so nothing to see here.

This defence was then torn apart by the bbc journo immediately after, wasn’t head of HBOS HR, they wouldn’t have seen the investigation anyway unless there was action taken, leaving mutually would spike any investigation etc et.

The takedown of the defence was quite simple and brutal and I thought that would be that until the headlines followed and were lead with “Labour minister says that there was no investigation and head of HR said Rachel is wonderful” which just seemed like a perfect position for the Beeb now to have another story if Reeves has to go and there was shenanigans then the story will roll on to Labour lying to try and defend her and the minister walked into a trap by telling those lies and trying to bluff through it.

I would be surprised if this doesn’t bring her down - Keir won’t want this bad smell and it’s gives a chance to reset with a more positive message with a new smiley face in the Exchequer rather than the shifty foghorn currently in place.

Edit to add that Ministers and Lab MPs won’t like it if they feel they are being forced to publicly defend her with potentially untrue lines so support will bleed out.

Loving the idea of a new smiley face telling us about the humungous tax rises coming along shortly.

Yep, that'll save Labour...

OldKingCole · February 15

pigeon said:

AnneJGP said:

pigeon said:
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.

I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.

Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.

We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.

Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.

Some of us oldies are increasingly worried about the position in which our grandchildren and their offspring, or potential offspring, find, or will find, themselves.

JosiasJessop · February 15

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:
I see Elon's fratboys, along with posting classified data on their public website, sacked hundreds of inspectors responsible for the safety of the US nuclear arsenal and are now desperately trying to hire them back.

Which is nice...
Have they sacked anyone directly?
What do you think?
I think not, Josias.
Yes, it's quite clear you do no thinking. It's why you're always asking questions.

But here's a story. There's plenty more on Google:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html
The story doesn't substantiate the claim that "Elon's fratboys" directly fired them.

Who did then? And why does 'directly' matter, given the situation Musk and his fratboys have created?

You're like someone defending Hitler over the Wannsee Conference...

MarqueeMark · February 15

Barnesian said:

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.

There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.

If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.

As a voter, why shouldn't I treat her with total disdain?

FF43 · February 15

Leon said:
The more interesting question is WHO is cold-drip brewing this story, and WHY are they so anti-Reeves?

I'm no fan of her, she's utterly useless, but she doesn't seem the type to make mortal enemies. Odd

The only very slightly interesting fact about this story to me is that someone sixteen years ago despised Reeves and her boss enough to raise a whistleblower complaint about their overenthusiastic use of an employee reward scheme the bank didn't bother to control properly. Given what else was going on at the time of the GFC and that HBOS was actually bankrupt this seems remarkably small beer. But I suppose there must have been a huge amount of pissed-off-ness given all the redundancies that ultimately claimed Reeves and her boss too.

pigeon · February 15

Sean_F said:

pigeon said:

AnneJGP said:

pigeon said:
I've not been following the Reeves story and can't summon any real interest in doing so. It would only be interesting if she were to depart and the successor implemented significant changes in policy, but that's not happening.

British economic policy, irrespective of who's nominally in charge of it, revolves around the increasingly heavy taxation of businesses and earnings in a futile attempt to keep pace with the unsustainable demand for benefits, coupled with the ramping of asset prices and the preferential tax treatment of the mountains of unearned wealth accumulated as a result. A stifling of social mobility, decay of the public realm, and all of the available money being progressively transferred to rent seekers and asset rich older people, is the result.

This isn't going to change under Labour and it still wouldn't change if we got the Liberal Democrats or Reform next. Too many vested interests. All too difficult. We are stuck.
At 76 it isn't a comfortable reflection, but in earlier centuries things like pandemics or even epidemics wiped out a lot of the aged and unhealthy, thus keeping the population profile somewhat more balanced.

I'm extremely grateful to be living in our own times with painkillers and antibiotics and all the rest, but it seems clear we can't just keep going with what someone described as a Ponzi scheme.

Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.

We oughtn't to keep going with things as they are, but we will because the people who need to be told to make do with a bit less are too numerous and too loud to be defied.

Middle class retirees with big expensive houses paid their taxes, and now expect younger people to inflation proof their living standards. Telling them that they need to contribute more to, for example, expanding the navy and keeping children out of poverty - and that the result of this is it's out with cruises round the Amalfi Coast, in with a long weekend in the Lake District, and their offspring will only get 80% of the house when they die rather than the whole lot - simply won't wash.
One can be too pessimistic, as well as too starry-eyed about human nature.

It's easy to assume that people in rich world countries are so stupid, and so selfish, that they would gladly see their own nations destroyed, so long as they kept their own assets, for a time. But, that may not be the case. People can be that stupid and selfish, but they may also be persuaded to step up to the mark.

Until the effort is made, we won't know.

Theresa May says hi.

Mexicanpete · February 15

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:
@ElizabethBangs
Hunt forgot he'd invested in luxury flats, breaking money laundering rules. Zahawi was Chancellor while being investigated by the SFS, the NCA and HMRC. Sunak, forgot his green card, his non dom wife and Infosys ffs.
But BBC 'research' on Reeves turns up...LinkedfckinIn ffs.
Weren't those all reported on by the BBC?

There is a difference in "reporting" and "investigative reporting" with an agenda. The BBC under Davie is hostile to the current incumbents of Downing Street in the way it wasn't during Johnson's era (Cenotaph footage from 2019 replaced with Cenotaph footage from 2016). Now all that is fine, but the BBC should acknowledge it now has an editorial agenda hostile to the incumbent Government, so we know where we all are.

StillWaters · February 15

Stereodog said:

squareroot2 said:
There is an error in the Title of this thread. It's not someone who has got it in for Reeves. For starters, there are about 10 million.pensioners who have lost their winter fuel allowance whilst Reeves has her heating expensed by the taxpayer... at least 3000 quid a year.
I hope she gets sacked, I really do.
Although for strict accuracy that figure is for all utilities and over half is for her constituency office. I think it's a tired trope that politicians shouldn't do X because they are allowed to claim for something similar.

The issue is that they often insulate themselves from the consequences of laws. For reasons.

Malmesbury · February 15

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

Chris said:
It's a bit difficult to know how else Reeves could have responded, if she was never told anything about the complaint at the time and the bank decided not to take any action about the complaint. The claim about what the "initial stage" of the investigation found - that Reeves "appeared" to have broken the rules - seems to come from a single unidentified source. Isn't it a bit strange that this source, supposedly with "direct knowledge of the probe", couldn't tell the BBC anything about its final outcome, or even whether any conclusion was reached?
It is strange that this anonymous hit job is being pushed by the BBC. I'd expect it of the Mail or Telegraph.

There must be someone fairly senior in the BBC who is pushing this story. They should be named as well as the anonymous source.

If I were Reeves, I would treat it with total disdain.
As a voter, why shouldn't I treat her with total disdain?

You need to doff your cap to your betters.

That’s how the New Egalitarian Society works.

Champagne socialism – politicalbetting.com

Comments