Page 21 of the Labour Manifesto: "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT." Not sure how we can misinterpret that?
Laudable, but untenable in the current circumstances, define "working people". and tax the rest perhaps?
And the tories added £1.6 trillion to the national debt (not even going to include £400 billion COVID cost). So what or who is the answer? Tories? No Labour? No….Reform? Definitely no.
Vote A.N.Other. Just listened to the Leader of the Opposition response to the Chancellor. "We have a plan, several plans", more Baldrick, than Bad Enoch...
Everyone complains that there is no money for anything. They then say Tax everyone but me. Someone has to stump up. As a comfortably off pensioner I would pay more tax to benefit my kids and grandkids. Trouble is governments are renown for wasting money, ie HS2. Stop wasting money, tax the better off, including me and don’t create a La La land economy.
Yesterday Farage - at yet another Reform press conference covered in its entirety on the Beeb - announced to an audience of bankers in the City, Reform were completely walking back their commitment to lowering taxes. While still committing to austerity measures. “We want to cut taxes of course we do, but we understand substantial tax cuts aren’t realistic at this moment in time. We are being mature, we are being sensible … we are not over promising. For us not to take account to the dire state of our public finances THAT I think I would be irresponsible. Do we want to have a smaller state?! YES. Are we going cut the benefits bill? YES. Will the civil service be smaller? YES. Will we get a grip on public sector pensions? YES. But we can’t make massive tax cuts until the market can see, we’ve got these things in hand”
It’s a reference to Reeves’ creative CV writing skills. She originally described her role at HBOS as an "economist," but later changed this description to "retail banking" after questions were raised. Former HBOS colleagues suggested her role was more administrative in nature rather than that of an economist as claimed. Also The Times reported allegations that Reeves had falsely claimed some of her work was published in a leading economic journals.
Oh I agree 100%. But I tried to not make promises that I couldnt keep to my kids. The things they are blaming on the tax rises are the things that we all knew about when we voted them in. Rather like with Will Still blaming last year. We know where we are, this is why we voted for you, so do something about it. Don't lie to get elected and then say Oh well cant do what we said after all.
Its Reeve's fault for getting herself into a massive economic straightjacket. Tax rises of some form were always likely to be required, its just the reality of where our economy is. Its not as if those promises ever did much for them at the election, there was no enthusiasm behind the vote for them anyway they just won by virtue of the Tories getting skelped. People here need to get real, we pay less tax per head than in most developed countries and pressure on our services are increasing as a result of having an imbalanced aging population, the whole 'waste' angle is a red herring (even if I am sure there is some). It is simply more expensive to run the country now than it was before because such a massive chunk of the population are retired and becoming frail, while the in work population isn't bringing in the cash required to cover the increased cost in services. Its like people who have come to the conclusion that their local council is just stealing money from them ('I am paying more council tax and services are disappearing, the council must be incompetent!'), when the reality is that the burden on Councils has never been higher due to increaed social care demand, but their resources have simultaneously been slashed by central government. They should take notice that Reform's 'DOGE' units have all failed. Of course I would never get voted in because I believe that, but therein lies part of the challenge. Too much of the public live in a fantasy world and are unwilling to listen to the hard truths. Labour should have known better than to play into this delusion and the criticism they are receiving now is their punishment for it.
A read of her profile in Wikepedia is revealing, plenty of scope for skeletons in the cupboard, should Press want to mount a smear campaign against her!
I was watching a video about the "patriots" protesting outside the Southampton hotel where migrants are staying and they were talking about the disgusting "terrorist" attack on the train. It turns out that the hero that saved several people by putting himself in harm's way has an Arabic name... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxr4qn6d66o
I think “Rachel from Accounts” is fairly inoffensive as a nickname tbh. If I was her I’d embrace it. After all, accountants save their clients or employers money, economists read tea leaves and call that science. And, when you compare the reality of the UK’s stuttering economy with the dire warnings of imminent doom plastered all over the media since day one of the current government, you’d have to say she’s doing a fair job of walking a tricky tightrope, so far.
They’ve been desperately trying to smear her for months, with only limited success, so perhaps not though, eh?
The first social media post I saw about this was I ‘bet they won’t have a name like Rob, James or Harry’ (replaced the names because I can’t remember the exact ones). To hundreds of likes and agreement. As it turns out a man named Samir was protecting passengers from an attacker named Anthony. (It doesn’t matter though because the goalposts have now shifted to ‘well the attacker is black so he isn’t really British’ and 'a Mouse born in a stable is not a Horse').
