Is Rachel Reeves serious?

I'm confused. The OP says that RR made that statement on GB news, then another poster says they read the DM account.

Did the OP see the GB News item, or a clip of it? Or did she read about it in the DM or similar?

Is RR being actually quoted verbatim?

Oreo

Oh for heavens sake! Stop all the defensive nonsense for what she said.If it had been a tory MP you would be up in arms.
It’s yet another politician, in this case just happens to be on the Labour front bench pretending their outgoings are exceeding their incomings!Look, I’m just like any other struggling family it’s saying, I feel your pain yada yada.No Rachel, you really don’t as you aren’t struggling financially.
I’m a Labour voter and it makes me cringe.

Who is that addressed to? If you are talking to me, then it's not 'defensive nonsense', I can assure you. And if you're talking to someone else, it is still not defensive nonsense. I would not have been up in arms' had a Tory MP made money from writing a book and got a few PR freebies. It's par for the course, and I am on record as saying that even Sunak, who is the epitome of a very rich man making policies for the poor, should not be blamed for having money. There is enough to blame him for when it comes to his politics, but his personal circumstances are his own.

We have no idea about RR (or anyone else's) financial commitments, and I find it disturbing in any context when people think they know what others 'can afford'. Again, I am on record for saying that people claiming to know who 'can afford' to pay for prescriptions, or care homes or whatever have no way of corroborating their claims. It's narrow-minded and petty to assume that because you (generic) 'could afford' to live on £X then someone else with entirely different circumstances should be able to do the same. Plus, it's entirely irrelevant, and in many ways is meaningless. What does it mean to be able to 'afford' something? Simply having the money to buy it? Even if that means going without something else? Or does it mean being able to buy it without thinking about the rest of your budget? If that's the case is that not why people save, and budget, and work? Not everyone can achieve that level of comfort, but it's an aim for most of us, and without that aim there would be no point in striving at all.

In a free country, nobody has a right to tell others how they should spend their own money, so long as they do so legally, and have come by it ethically. To set some sort of bar at which people 'can afford' to live would drag everyone down to a base level and there would be no incentive to do well at anything, as success would have negative consequences.

The truth is that prices have risen and incomes have not. Whether someone has an income of £500k a year or £5k a year, if they are used to spending close to that amount they will find it more difficult to manage than they did before the cost of living went through the roof. Moralising is pointless - we don't live in an equal society. The important thing is that those making policies abide by them, and that they do the best they can to ensure that as many of the public benefit from those policies as possible, not just their cronies.

I really don't want to fall into the trap of even wondering what RR's budget might be, but most MPs (particularly cabinet members of all sides) need to run two houses, which is going to be expensive, and if people aren't paid for things like writing books they won't bother, and everyone's lives will be the poorer for having no Arts, education or entertainment (or only that produced by those who 'can afford' to work for nothing, at least).

If she is paying all the childcare costs she needs marital advice. There is no evidence that that is the case.
I actually had that arrangement, I earned less than my husband as I worked part time, so he put part of his salary in my account. I would not have pretended that my household income was a problem.

In her defence... if she is not the major earner in her household (I suspect as an MP, she is not), then the household's budget might be balanced perfectly well but her payments out require to be topped up by cash infusion from her partner as they are not entirely covered by her own salary. There would be nothing odd with that arrangement: if she makes all the childcare and mortgage payments plus personal finance on a car, say, she could readily blow through her MP salary living in London.

Terribull rather than terribly🤦‍♀️

Yes I agree terribly. It is unlike her to make that kind of slip. And I do think it was a mistake to say that.

Howard Davis I omitted to mention his name.

I absolutely think politicians, or even public figures, should think hard before they make pronouncement that aren't going to resonate with the general public, it's not as if RR has had a gilded upbringing, unlike "we're all in this together" Osborne, just no idea, no foresight whatsoever The recent pronouncement from another useless overpaid member of the ruling elite millionaire Chairman of The Nat West Group, "it's not difficult for young people to get on the property ladder" what friggin' planet do these people live on??

Oreo I just thought that handling the budget for an entire country has to be a quantum leap from that of a household budget and she can’t make that square.

Is she telling the truth? For me that was important too. And will she finish the book before she starts as Chancellor? Does she have the time to do that as well as attend to her constituents?

Why does her office need extra amounts from David Sainsbury? £25k a pop.

Monica exactly.

ronib

‘What makes me wince is when I look at my bank statement and I find that the money coming in is increasingly short of the money going out.’ Rachel Reeves in conversation with Christopher Hope on GB News.
Declared earnings last year of £353k.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

What part of the first sentence by RR don’t posters understand?
It was a stupid thing for her to say.
I guess some people are just so partisan in their politics that they refuse to admit that one of their own politicians can say anything that’s wrong/ silly/ .

I am absolutely with Oreo. One assumes that MPs have a certain minimum level of intelligence and will have experience of the problems facing many of their constituents through talking to them and trying to help them, so they are capable of understanding the problems faced by people on limited incomes. They do not need to have experienced it themselves.

The idea that you cannot understand something unless you have experienced it is nonsense. I was a volunteer home advisor with Age Concern (as was) for 10 year, mainly filling in Attendance Allowance forms and over the 10 years I did this work, I got a deep understanding of disability in old age, its causes, its effects and the incredible insoluble pain and suffering many people lived with. I did not need to be disabled myself to understand their problems

I read the DM article and concluded whatever RR had said would be distorted in an attempt to discredit her. This is just the start and we can be certain they’ll be digging for anything to suggest the LP has no policies and corrupt out of touch MPs. RR wasn’t pleading poverty. She was stating the truth about the rising cost of living. I’m very fortunate to have a decent pension, and some savings in case the house/car/me need repairs. That doesn’t stop my wincing when I pay my supermarket bill, buy clothes, look at the smart meter.

All politicians of whatever political stripe have to do is say that they understand that many people are struggling financially, and just stop with the ‘oh I’m just the same ‘silly stuff.

Whitewavemark2

Don’t forget that Sunak will have “earned” the average salary by mid-morning coffee break.

Does it matter?

Of course not! If they make good policy and have the whole country’s good to heart.

That is the question we must ask ourselves.

All this silly tittle tattle is just that.

Rise above it.

You are spectacularly missing the point.

Oh for heavens sake! Stop all the defensive nonsense for what she said.If it had been a tory MP you would be up in arms.
It’s yet another politician, in this case just happens to be on the Labour front bench pretending their outgoings are exceeding their incomings!Look, I’m just like any other struggling family it’s saying, I feel your pain yada yada.No Rachel, you really don’t as you aren’t struggling financially.
I’m a Labour voter and it makes me cringe.

One major issue when looking at various dead cats being thrown on lots of tables during this period of a run up to the next election, will be the use of AI in producing lying videos.

Most will be impossible to distinguish from the real person, so I think we should try to arm ourselves to try to avoid being fooled by those lying and using underhand tactics.

Perhaps a new thread on the subject?

Don’t forget that Sunak will have “earned” the average salary by mid-morning coffee break.

Does it matter?

Of course not! If they make good policy and have the whole country’s good to heart.

That is the question we must ask ourselves.

All this silly tittle tattle is just that.

Rise above it.

Should she have written the book for no payment? Whatever for? Those sums are fairly standard - unless you are someone like Jeffrey Archer, who received millions from his writing whilst serving as an MP.

The tickets and goody bag sound like standard PR packages. They are of little cost to the donors, come with no endorsement obligation to the recipient, and can raise publicity for an event or product if the recipient is seen in attendance or using the products. In this case they amount to a few theatre tickets and a handbag with ‘goodies’ in it. Nice if you can get it (and celebrities of all sorts get this sort of thing all the time), but not an inducement to corruption. The rest was staff salaries and disbursements - the full list is here:
members.parliament.uk/member/4031/registeredinterests

I don’t know why any of that matters to members of the public. It doesn’t come close to getting a moat cleaned or a grace and favour flat decorated, and it has all been declared. If it emerged that there were tens of thousands of pounds that had been ‘forgotten’ about it would be different, but this is clearly an attempt to discredit the Labour Party as an election looms.

Fortunately I suspect that the majority of voters will see through it as a pre-emptive strike against campaign that will suggest that the Tories are out of touch with the electorate. IMO the insult to our intelligence comes in the assumption that we will fall for the ‘they are all the same’ line and forget about the cronyism and profiteering that has gone on over the past 13 years. Some will, and others will pounce on anything and call it ‘evidence’ of Labour wrongdoing, but I think it will take more than a feeble smear campaign to wipe the collective memory of the population, however much the media try to fool us.

Buckle up - we are in for a lot more of this nonsense. It’s going to be a very dirty campaign.

Many of them have no need to because they have experienced poverty at other times of their lives.

You’re right, it really is an insult, to our intelligence!
Why oh why do politicians act as if they were a cash strapped family? There’s just no need.

Any pretence at suffering in the cost of living crisis is just that - pretence. It is no more believable than if Starmer or Sunak were to pretend that their outgoings exceed their incomes. It is an insult.

Growstuff £22904 book advance and audio book. The BBC donated tickets to the last night of the Proms? Why do you think considerable donations to the office of the shadow chancellor were necessary from David Sainsbury? Surely the civil service provides that?
Also don’t forget that her husband is well paid and to suggest that her own household can’t balance its budget is a misstep.

Most of that money was donated to her for use by the party, not her as an individual.

The records show that she earned £30,000 in addition to her salary and legitimate expenses.

Still a lot more than the average person in the UK, but no need to exaggerate.

Her outgoings must be quite something then - if she’s being truthful rather than just trying to appeal to the voters. I know what I think. What a shame she wasn’t questioned on that.