Mailwatch(ed) Forum

One for Rachel Reeves. ISAs. Apparently they've now got £300bn invested in them. Limit per year for a family of two parents and two kids is £58,000.

Not sure this is a priority right now. Or indeed ever.

I see James Ball, who I otherwise like, has said this will get money into shares as they peak (the City apparently thinks scrapping ISAs will be good for shares).

Ball was telling us Reeves fiscal headroom was definitely all gone the other week.

Osborne's first 2 complete quarters had zero net growth. He didn't face this reaction.

Reminds me of the garbage Mason wrote.

If they only scrutinised the other government as much, we as a country would be in a better place.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 7:30 pm Osborne's first 2 complete quarters had zero net growth. He didn't face this reaction.

He wasn't from accounts.

Or Peckham. Or a bit glottal.

Yet another example of the pre-programmed, English predisposition to the superiority of glass-cut accents.

Yeah, surprised Old Quentin hasn't done a "Would you buy a used car from South East London Rach?". Maybe he has.

Wait she's Gordon Brown in a dress

https://unherd.com/2025/01/rachel-reeve ... n-a-dress/

More importantly, though, Reeves’s teen-worship reveals the limits of her ambition. Hers is less a politics of utopias or grand narratives, but rather one of managerialism, and deep, lifelong integration with the strange social club of professionalised Labour politics. Like Brown, she has no intention of altering the relationship between state and market, or between labour and capital, in any substantive way. Instead, her Platonic ideal is a return to the easy politics of Britain in the post-Cold War years, buoyed by a booming global economy. That was before the 2008 crash and all the morbid symptoms of secular stagnation that developed after — including the populisms of the Left and Right, and the intensifying culture wars. In Reeves’s analysis, what Britain needs is not so much a new growth model, but simply a return to growth per se. This would be enough to protect the sensible, centre-left old guard from oblivion.

The problem isn’t limited to Labour. The whole of Europe has become a seedbed of national populism; an incubator for the politics of Giorgia Meloni, Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen and the AfD. It is no longer a continent of expansionary, liberal optimism, but instead resembles a declining, dysfunctional terrain that is falling far behind the true, bifurcated hegemons facing off in Washington and Beijing. In such a world, caught in the middle of a new Cold War, how can Labour possibly survive?

Who does she think she is.
Living it large in number eleven.
With her sensible shoes and Marina Navratilova haircut.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:31 pm Wait she's Gordon Brown in a dress

https://unherd.com/2025/01/rachel-reeve ... n-a-dress/

More importantly, though, Reeves’s teen-worship reveals the limits of her ambition. Hers is less a politics of utopias or grand narratives, but rather one of managerialism, and deep, lifelong integration with the strange social club of professionalised Labour politics. Like Brown, she has no intention of altering the relationship between state and market, or between labour and capital, in any substantive way. Instead, her Platonic ideal is a return to the easy politics of Britain in the post-Cold War years, buoyed by a booming global economy. That was before the 2008 crash and all the morbid symptoms of secular stagnation that developed after — including the populisms of the Left and Right, and the intensifying culture wars. In Reeves’s analysis, what Britain needs is not so much a new growth model, but simply a return to growth per se. This would be enough to protect the sensible, centre-left old guard from oblivion.

The problem isn’t limited to Labour. The whole of Europe has become a seedbed of national populism; an incubator for the politics of Giorgia Meloni, Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen and the AfD. It is no longer a continent of expansionary, liberal optimism, but instead resembles a declining, dysfunctional terrain that is falling far behind the true, bifurcated hegemons facing off in Washington and Beijing. In such a world, caught in the middle of a new Cold War, how can Labour possibly survive?

There's a man who thinks in terms of sweeping global movements. Don't see why Labour shouldn't get re-elected if real terms incomes rise and services get better. As in France, if racist headbangers look like they're going to get elected, there's quite a pool of sane people who'll show up against them where needed.

Populist Meloni is increasing the number of migrant working visas.

Yup they’ve failed to note the incumbency situation. That’s what is playing out.

Some data today suggests the economy doing better than expected (it's not as detailed as a prediction, but it's a favorable sign).

The BBC presumably was expecting this to be bad and had some flimsy stories about Reeves from nearly 20 years ago lined up to try and push her out. "As the economy died on its arse today, Rachel from accounts faced serious questions about her financial properiety at HBOS, which tax payers had to save from bankruptcy. A brave whistleblower revealed how Reeves bought luxury handbags with the firm's money..."

The economy looking OK, they none the less ran these stories.

Here's one of them. Seriously. Guardian summarises:

Documents seen by the BBC contained evidence about the three managers’ use of expenses, with spending on gifts and taxis, including for each other, and Reeves buying birthday presents for colleagues with the bank’s money. The whistleblower’s report claimed she spent £152 on a handbag and perfume as a present for her boss using the bank’s money.

Jayne Wayper, a former HR business partner for HBOS, said: “I do not recognise any of the accusations or claims that have been made against Rachel Reeves.

“In my role, I would have been made aware of any investigation which concluded there was a case to answer. I would have been required to organise and oversee a disciplinary process. This did not happen. Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, any such accusations would have to have been properly investigated.

“Under the company’s then expenses policy, birthday gifts and Christmas presents could be purchased using motivation cards. Indeed, staff were encouraged to do so for their teams.”

As soon as I saw the first bit, I thought, "hang on, that looks like Rachel getting the handbag on behalf of the firm". The firm's actually doing the staff a favour by paying for presents itself instead of making them do a whip round, right?

Whistleblower though. FFS. The other scandal is a date wrong on Linkedin, which makes it look like she worked somewhere for 9 months longer than she did. Quite what fell purpose was served by this isn't clear.

Questions raised.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77r05nx11po

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the chancellor's online CV, and the use of expenses while working at a bank, in the wake of a BBC News investigation.

Rachel Reeves and two colleagues were the subject of an expenses probe while she was a senior manager at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in the late 2000s.

It was also revealed that the chancellor's online CV exaggerated the length of time she worked at the Bank of England.

Sir Keir Starmer said Reeves has "dealt with any issues that arise" when asked about her CV by a reporter.

The initial stage of the investigation found that a whistleblower's complaint was substantiated at HBOS, and the three employees appeared to have broken the rules, according to a senior source with direct knowledge of the probe.

We have not been able to establish what the final outcome of the investigation was. Indeed, it may not have concluded.

A spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor had no knowledge of the investigation, always complied with expenses rules and left the bank on good terms.

Here's a question. Why are you bothering with this non-story?

Famously Iain Duncan Smith's career was finished by completely lying about attending a prestigious university and attended a college of management (which was a couple of weekends of in-house training at Marconi).

The BBC have airily dismissed Rachel hitting the G-Spot this morning, just as they did with Sunak's "technical recession". Instead, these polished packages of LinkedIn outrage were canned and ready to go.

These Flisses and Henrys hate her, don't they?

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:31 pm
Here's a question. Why are you bothering with this non-story?

Robbie Gibb
Tim Davie
Laura Kuennsberg

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:31 pm Questions raised.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77r05nx11po

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the chancellor's online CV, and the use of expenses while working at a bank, in the wake of a BBC News investigation.

Rachel Reeves and two colleagues were the subject of an expenses probe while she was a senior manager at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in the late 2000s.

It was also revealed that the chancellor's online CV exaggerated the length of time she worked at the Bank of England.

Sir Keir Starmer said Reeves has "dealt with any issues that arise" when asked about her CV by a reporter.

The initial stage of the investigation found that a whistleblower's complaint was substantiated at HBOS, and the three employees appeared to have broken the rules, according to a senior source with direct knowledge of the probe.

We have not been able to establish what the final outcome of the investigation was. Indeed, it may not have concluded.

A spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor had no knowledge of the investigation, always complied with expenses rules and left the bank on good terms.

Here's a question. Why are you bothering with this non-story?

There was an investigation which the relevant HR person says they never heard of. My guess is that the somebody "in accounts" (you see what I did there) had a look at stuff that sounded a bit funny. "£152 Handbag" would certainly sound funny, and you might well check.

See also taxis. Did you need that taxi, Rachel? Well, I suppose I could have got the train. Shall I do that next time? If you can, yes- we're saying this to all staff.

Need be no more to it than that.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:33 pm The BBC have airily dismissed Rachel hitting the G-Spot this morning, just as they did with Sunak's "technical recession". Instead, these polished packages of LinkedIn outrage were canned and ready to go.

These Flisses and Henrys hate her, don't they?

Yep.

I get the feeling a Reeves recession would be a bit more than technical.

After Larry the Cat tells LauraK we aren't in recession.

All this manufactured outrage is getting a bit ridiculous.