Reeves 'economical' over her Budget?

The problem is that if Starmer and Reeves are made to go, who replaces them? Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband as pm? And who might be chancellor?
Does any mp have better life experience of economics than the current chancellor?

I agree with Allsorts.
Seeing as they are joined at the hip, both Starmer and Reeves need to accept full responsibility.

Just why are Starmer and Reeve so tightly bound? He is justifying her behaviour. One goes they both do.
I think it perfectly right you criticise any government if a policy or anything is wrong, you can’t blindly follow. This was
Reeves misleading and lying to the the public to get what she wanted. Who could trust her after that. They come as a pair so let them leave as that. He is a lawyer and if he sanctioned this deception he knows the consequences. As for those false tears in the house, they were just to deflect. She has shown herself to be manipulative to get what she wants.

I do hope that the select committee still calls Richard Hughes to give evidence today.

I think the main problem with this government is that they have a long-term plan for this country and they are too focused on that. Corbyn and Starmer are in the same camp, bringing everyone down to the level of the lowest.

The best Christmas present the UK could receive is the ousting resignation of Starmer and Reeves

My opinion of Starmer and Reeves was that both of them were enjoying the discomfiture of the electorate and the media, in that they had 'managed to pull a fast one' in their budget. Richard Hughes' resignation means he will not be allowed to present his report on the projections of the OBR versus Reeves' misleading interpretation.

I am also furious that this increase in benefits to those not prepared to work has been done under the guise of eradicating child poverty.
There is real child poverty and genuinely needy families but they have to compete with those who know exactly how to play the system. I have been involved in too many child protection cases not to see that it is frequently the result of neglectful parenting, not lack of money. The money is there, given for a new bed and mattress, for a complete school uniform, for a school residential trip, attendance allowance etc etc but has been 'misappropriated', and spent elsewhere.

Child poverty is calculated on the basis of the shortfall of household income compared with the median income (complicated enough) and the ability to provide the staples of life: diet, clothing, heating and basic facilities. Deliberate neglect of children is not of prime consideration unless or until brought to the attention of Social Services, hence the lengthy case conferences and a multitude of reports. The money is there, but with no check on how it is spent it does not reach its intended target.

If they want to have any chance of re- election they need to have a huge shake up. Starting with Reeves and Starmer. They are not suitable leaders and haven’t been from the start. Now they are seen as totally dishonest and it is time they moved over and let someone else do the job. There must be someone in that party, there are enough of them after all.

Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights this morning at the press conference when the Sky reporter laid into him.

He is going to get slaughtered at the spring elections - if he is still PM.

Raising taxation to fund benefit street will not be a popular move no matter how t is styled.

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.

DaisyAnneReturns

Have those who want to keep on keeping on fled the original thread?

Have a good time catastrophising. You seem to enjoy it.

I very much doubt that anyone enjoys it, we would much rather this government did well which would mean the country did well.

eazybee

Misleading, mendacious; duplicitous.
The amount of this supposed black hole was not actually quoted in Parliament by Reeves therefore she cannot be held to account, by Parliament apparently, but widespread outside parliament to the press and social media by various people responsible to the Labour Party.
Which to me smacks of chicanery.

Exactly.

^ Yes, the removal of the 2 child policy is funded but only by raising personal taxes. It is disingenuous of anybody to suggest otherwise.^

But I will point out again, ad nauseum if need be, that the money, if not all of it will create much needed economic activity while it is in circulation in the economy and most of it will return to the government by way of taxation.

Sadly, all the tax increases will do, especially those for the lower paid, is take much needed money out of the economy. So the two effectually cancel each other out...

If, God forbid, there is another pandemic then we should all take comfort from the fact that this Government is well practised in crisis management - sadly, for crises solely of their making.

The pre-Budget leaks; press calls etc were a carefully worked out plan to soften up the Electorate to tax increases. Sadly, as any military person could have told them - no plan ever survives first contact.

The biggest deceit, as Daniel Finkelstein pointed out on Politics Today, was that Labour came into Government stating that it would not introduce policies that the Country could not afford. This Budget swept away that promise. Yes, the removal of the 2 child policy is funded but only by raising personal taxes. It is disingenuous of anybody to suggest otherwise.

8DaisyAnneReturns* DaisyAnneReturns

Are you calling the OBR liars 8DaisyAnneReturns*?

Did you not ever criticise any Conservative Chancellor's budget?

one of that none of that

Except one of that is true.

There is a thread on the budget already running here: www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1353742-The-Budget
This does seem to be a catastrophers thread, however.

It is worth remembering (or thinking about for the first time) that nobody who is just trying to persuade you to be outraged at another part of your own society - including democratically elected government's - is going to offer you any solutions. It's just tribal and we really are capable of better than that.

I can't understand why she didn't just tell the truth. "Ok, things seem to be improving but there are things I think really need doing plus I don't want to risk not having cash for an emergency, so I am going to need more money".
I mean, it's not as if we could say No Thankyou, is it?

I was abroad at the time of the budget.

I've come back to more news about the lies, deception, and misleading information than about the actual budget itself!!

And Rachel Reeves is only fuelling it by cropping up everywhere to justify herself.

Misleading, mendacious; duplicitous.
The amount of this supposed black hole was not actually quoted in Parliament by Reeves therefore she cannot be held to account, by Parliament apparently, but widespread outside parliament to the press and social media by various people responsible to the Labour Party.
Which to me smacks of chicanery.

Have those who want to keep on keeping on fled the original thread?

Have a good time catastrophising. You seem to enjoy it.

Starting to despair over the state of Politics.
Well, it is not even politics itself this time, it is the, maybe higher up, Members of Parliment.

And how do they think they will get away with things?
Sheer arrogance?

If indeed it is all true.

I know. It is a bit like Groundhog day.