Reeves 'economical' over her Budget?

Oreo and Mollygo Agree. Just posted on another political thread to say the same thing really.

Smileless2012

I don't get any pleasure from a Chancellor who is at best economical with the truth; at worse lied deliberately misled the public and a PM who is so obsessed with her weak that he supports her no matter what.

Sums the mess up perfectly! 🙄

It certainly does to those who want that to be the truth.

What if your information was neutral, well researched and properly sourced? Information that looked at the whole picture? When the Germans were released from the propoganda that drove them, it took time for them to understand what was true. All many of them could say was "we didn't know". But the people driving them knew that their willingness to believe the people who were simply evil, would help that evil to gain power.

And who suffered. Yes groups were treated despicably but the people who had followed the propoganda also suffered.

It is patently obvious from the information available that Rachel Reeves misled by omission! An honest upfront approach would have been to have:

1. Stated that the OBR report showed that there was no "black hole" and in fact there was 4 billion "in hand"
2. Gone on to explain the context that the 4 billion in hand did not however include the coming expenses for increased welfare payments etc etc etc agreed committed to by the goverment
3. Stated that therefore in order to pay for those additional demands on the country's finances, it was necessary to raise ...etc etc!

That would have actually given "the whole picture" up front rather than misleading by omission of the facts. The truth might not have been politically expedient for the government but truth is truth "NOT" propaganda!!

Well said Mollygo😃 that was all that was needed.
Then the country would have seen the truth…that the new welfare payouts are a government choice and the taxpayers have to fund it!

Sorry, meant to say Madgran77 well said.😃

Oreo

Sorry, meant to say Madgran77 well said.😃

Thankyou. It isnt even just that it is raised welfare per se. Welfare does need reform but their first mistake was to chuck it into the mix last year as a "money saving" strategy rather than as a reviewed strategy for welfare against need! As a society we should look after those when they truly need it. Doing it as a non reviewed money saver inevitably meant that people were being targeted without any consideration of the nuances of this complex area of need. It was a ridiculously naive way to approach a very complex problem

^ As a society we should look after those when they truly need it.^

Aaah. But there is the fundamental problem. There is a rather large difference of opinions on who ‘truly needs’ it.

Madgran77

It is patently obvious from the information available that Rachel Reeves misled by omission! An honest upfront approach would have been to have:

1. Stated that the OBR report showed that there was no "black hole" and in fact there was 4 billion "in hand"
2. Gone on to explain the context that the 4 billion in hand did not however include the coming expenses for increased welfare payments etc etc etc agreed committed to by the goverment
3. Stated that therefore in order to pay for those additional demands on the country's finances, it was necessary to raise ...etc etc!

That would have actually given "the whole picture" up front rather than misleading by omission of the facts. The truth might not have been politically expedient for the government but truth is truth "NOT" propaganda!!

Your argument depends on your interpretation. Rachel Reeves' depends on hers - which, as Chancellor, she is entitled to, indeed, must have. What is obvious is your personal bias. We all have it but we also have democracy and the that gives us a bias chosen by the people. The counter argument might well be:

• The reported “£4.2 billion surplus” didn’t reflect future spending commitments or policy reversals.According to the government’s explanation, the surplus figure that appears in the pre-Budget forecast by Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is “pre-measures headroom.” That means it doesn’t yet account for upcoming spending decisions — for example the reversal of previous welfare cuts, reinstatement of benefits, the scrapping of a two-child benefit cap, or other welfare/winter-payments commitments.

• The surplus at that time would have been the lowest “headroom” any chancellor had delivered under the fiscal rules — arguably too small to absorb shocks or new costs.Reeves has argued that while technically there was “headroom,” it was minimal and fragile; not enough to ensure fiscal resilience in a challenging economic environment.

• There was a legitimate basis for warning of fiscal risk — namely the productivity downgrade.In her pre-Budget speech she referenced a downgrade in expected productivity growth, which would negatively affect future tax receipts. That was part of the reasoning used to warn that the public finances could be under pressure.

• Being transparent about broader economic uncertainty (not just surplus/deficit) can justify cautious framing.Even with a projected surplus, long-term commitments, economic volatility (e.g. inflation, interest rates, welfare demand) and global instability can change the fiscal outlook quickly; thus, signalling caution and the possibility of tax rises could be argued as responsible stewardship, not deception.

• The government has denied the claim of misleading by omission — framing it as a difference between “pre-measures headroom” and final fiscal decisions.Officials argue that the “surplus” figure did not mean unconstrained spending; there were still upcoming obligations and policy reversals that needed to be funded.

Your post suggests you wanted the budget presented differently but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that we were "misled". To use your word, "patently" we were not as debate will bring out all views and, as yet, debate is not banned in this country.

Excellent post @ 11.46 yesterday Madgran . RR deliberately misled the country on the morning of her 20 minute ramble speech.

Your argument depends on your interpretation as does yours DAR and I don't agree that RR has the right to mislead the country. The counter argument you've presented would entail referring to the '4.2 billion surplus' which she failed to mention.

I have noticed that from the beginning, RR has presented black holes as a justification for her actions. So it seems likely that black holes are part of the rhetoric prepared by whoever writes RR’s speeches. It doesn’t matter by now if the public is being manipulated by the use of this narrative. We’re on to it and RR’s words are not taken at face value, if budgets ever were….

I wish that RR and Starmer and Lammy would disappear into the infamous black hole and some better politicians put in their places.

Your argument depends on your interpretation

No! It is based on the facts as presented. She knew the black hole wasnt there. She didnt tell us that fact. The facts were manipulated.

What IS my interpretation is that it wasnt told because of political expediency!

Smileless2012

Excellent post @ 11.46 yesterday Madgran . RR deliberately misled the country on the morning of her 20 minute ramble speech.

Your argument depends on your interpretation as does yours DAR and I don't agree that RR has the right to mislead the country. The counter argument you've presented would entail referring to the '4.2 billion surplus' which she failed to mention.

It's as clear from the opposing views on hear that RR hasn't "mislead" anyone. How would you be challenging it if that were the case. She has, though, presented a budget some don't agree with as always happens in a democracy.

Your counter arguement might refer to a "4.2 billion surplus" but that is not the counter view of everyone who doesn't agree with the budget and mine was just a suggestion of what might be said.

When, in the entirety of our democratic history, has everyone agreed on these things? You don't. You and the right-wing MSM have tried to bring her down using your views. It happens and then life moves on. Your version is no more a "truth" than anyone else's. It's an opinion, admittedly a strongly held one, but still an opinion.

Oreo

I wish that RR and Starmer and Lammy would disappear into the infamous black hole and some better politicians put in their places.

Who decides what's better? Granset? We are getting the view of an older group who are (ststistically) more likely to back right-leaning parties. It is to be expected there will be loud voices on here against left-wing government.

It’s nothing to do with a budget that some don’t agree on, tho of course not many budgets are popular and certainly not with all.
RR didn’t actually lie but neither did she actually tell the truth.
Being truthful to the Cabinet, Parliament and also the People should be a requirement from a Chancellor.
She obfuscated by telling us all about the black hole, Tory mismanagement blah blah in order to blind us to the fact that the black hole doesn’t exist and Labour Left had pushed her into removing the two child cap therefore making tax payers cough up more to pay for it.Actually thinking about it, that was a lie!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

For heavens sake the country is in a better financial state than people thought. Presumably RRs first budget improved the situation as there was a black hole. Hooray, be happy, stop looking for things to moan about. What is wrong with people.

Oreo you claim that the “black hole” (i.e. a fiscal shortfall) “doesn’t exist,” implying that warnings of a black hole were a smokescreen to mask the benefit-cap decision. That is extremely hard to prove as fiscal forecasts are notoriously uncertain.

There is no publicly accepted evidence that the government knowingly fabricated a “black hole” purely to justify scrapping the cap. Given the large cost of removing the cap, it’s not implausible that they genuinely expected a fiscal hole.

You are biased Orea and it serves us all well to recognise our own bias. For some this government is too far to the left for others it isn't far enough.

Oreo don’t worry.
Gransnet is a great place to spot bias, whoever is showing it. Some just recognise it, others accuse people of being biased whilst not acknowledging their own.

Oreo

😆 I ‘m a Labour voter from a strongly Labour voting family.
That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise ever.
You do seem to harp on about older people a lot DAR are you maybe only the age of our children?🤔

You do seem to harp on about older people a lot DAR are you maybe only the age of our children? 🤔
If so, that could create a bias against older people as there seems to be much of that now, even on Gransnet.

I think many who voted Labour in the last election are bemused by some of the claims, decisions, and backtracking by this Government.

Listening to the comments of some tv journalists, political editors who have been present at news conferences with Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer, I do not believe that they were biased in their reporting.

My only bias is based on the fact that Starmer and RR together have made so many wrong decisions in the last 18 months that Labour is tanking in the polls.
If it carries on like this they won’t form the next government, having waited 14 years to get into power it will be thrown away.

Oreo

My only bias is based on the fact that Starmer and RR together have made so many wrong decisions in the last 18 months that Labour is tanking in the polls.
If it carries on like this they won’t form the next government, having waited 14 years to get into power it will be thrown away.

Worrying, isn't it.

If they don't improve, I shall revert to voting Lib Dem even though I don't think they'll get in. Goodness knows what will happen; I don't have a crystal ball.

Mollygo

Oreo don’t worry.
Gransnet is a great place to spot bias, whoever is showing it. Some just recognise it, others accuse people of being biased whilst not acknowledging their own.

Of course Oreo shouldn't be worried Mollygo. Everyone (including me, as I have repeatedly said) has biases, and they can creep into how we interpret political decisions. It’s worth taking a step back sometimes to ask, ‘Am I reacting to the evidence, or to my expectations about this party or politician?’”