Page 2 | To think the Chancellor is a bit of a Chancer

rwalker · 14/02/2025 09:59

SidekickSylvia · 14/02/2025 09:33

Why is Reeves being compared to Truss? Truss wasn't Chancellor, under her leadership it was Kwarteng. So the economy being a mess under Truss, was Truss' fault, but under Starmer, it's Reeves' fault. Surely the correct comparison would be Starmer/ Truss or Reeves/Kwarteng, not the two women.

Because if you asked who fucked the economy the majority would answer truss they want to compare and associate Reeves with failure nothing to do with being a woman

Miley1967 · 14/02/2025 11:54

She said at various speeches that she had worked for the BOE for the best part of a decade when actually it was less than five and a half years. That really is stretching the truth !

Original poster

Viviennemary · 14/02/2025 11:58

Miley1967 · 14/02/2025 11:54

She said at various speeches that she had worked for the BOE for the best part of a decade when actually it was less than five and a half years. That really is stretching the truth !

Should somebody with such poor skills with numbers really be Chancellor. I suggest they should not.

OP posts:

spuddy4 · 14/02/2025 12:02

I think the rumours about Starmer wanting rid of her are to improve their popularity are true and it's his people that are fanning the flames. She'll be gone by the end of the month at the latest.

ForLovingAquaSheep · 14/02/2025 12:07

Naive if she has inflated her CV but I can't understand why that means she can't do a decent job.

Are people stupid enough to think he makes economic decisions unilaterally? Labour will have an outline idea of what they want to achieve. The Treasury has an army of economics who will flesh those plans out into something that works politically and economically.

Even if she so wanted she can't come up with some barm pot idea unilaterally and that is all of a sudden policy.

She's clearly a highly intelligent woman who has made mistakes along the way, as we all have. I don't envy her position in the slightest.

EasternStandard · 14/02/2025 12:10

spuddy4 · 14/02/2025 12:02

I think the rumours about Starmer wanting rid of her are to improve their popularity are true and it's his people that are fanning the flames. She'll be gone by the end of the month at the latest.

I wouldn't mind but he is complicit and tied to those policies

dayoffvibes · 14/02/2025 12:12

Viviennemary · 14/02/2025 09:22

It even got raised last night on question time. I think she should be sacked. Even without this she is a pain in the neck. And so full of herself. Awful woman. But I dont like KS either. Only thing good about them is they're better than Liz Truss. Which wouldn't be hard.

You've really got it in for her and you sound personal about it. She's certainly not an "awful" woman and nor does she come across as "up herself" whatsoever! I can think of countless MP's who certainly do come across as up themselves.

Regardless of whether or not these rumours are true, you actually sound either envious of her or just misogynistic.

Waitingfordaffs · 14/02/2025 12:12

She is in a position of trust and has shown she is dishonest - those two things shouldn’t go together . Who they have to replace her with I don’t know - most of them seem to be lacking in real experience outside politics or local government

nearlylovemyusername · 14/02/2025 12:13

She'll be gone by the end of the month at the latest.

So what? do they have anyone better? or rather - anyone different? with understanding of how economy works instead of ideology? Will they reverse NI? IHT? PS VAT, WFA?
She's just a face of this party.

Has anyone ever wondered why on the planes they say "put your own oxygen mask first before helping others incl children"? this is so counterintuitive but if you think about it this makes perfect sense. Whilst you're wriggling with another human you run out of oxygen yourself, making poor job for them and both of you die. If you sort yourself out pronto first you're fit to help them whilst they are still alive and haven't passed the point of no recovery.

Economy is the same. You need to support the strongest to flourish, to grow and once they are successful, part of their success can be used to help the weakest. Yes, by doing so you accept there will be inequality, because those strongest won't happily give everything away, but living standards will improve for everyone.
Labour's doctrine is to weed those strongest out, to get rid of successful ones, take so much from them to give to the weakest that the strongest just disappear. They are killing the very same businesses and high earners who could grow the pie.

That's dilemma, do you want to live well but unequal or do you want equal sh.t for everyone?

EasternStandard · 14/02/2025 12:18

nearlylovemyusername · 14/02/2025 12:13

She'll be gone by the end of the month at the latest.

So what? do they have anyone better? or rather - anyone different? with understanding of how economy works instead of ideology? Will they reverse NI? IHT? PS VAT, WFA?
She's just a face of this party.

Has anyone ever wondered why on the planes they say "put your own oxygen mask first before helping others incl children"? this is so counterintuitive but if you think about it this makes perfect sense. Whilst you're wriggling with another human you run out of oxygen yourself, making poor job for them and both of you die. If you sort yourself out pronto first you're fit to help them whilst they are still alive and haven't passed the point of no recovery.

Economy is the same. You need to support the strongest to flourish, to grow and once they are successful, part of their success can be used to help the weakest. Yes, by doing so you accept there will be inequality, because those strongest won't happily give everything away, but living standards will improve for everyone.
Labour's doctrine is to weed those strongest out, to get rid of successful ones, take so much from them to give to the weakest that the strongest just disappear. They are killing the very same businesses and high earners who could grow the pie.

That's dilemma, do you want to live well but unequal or do you want equal sh.t for everyone?

Edited

True it's Labour's policies and that is throughout the party, whoever it is

MissMoneyFairy · 14/02/2025 12:23

Waitingfordaffs · 14/02/2025 12:12

She is in a position of trust and has shown she is dishonest - those two things shouldn’t go together . Who they have to replace her with I don’t know - most of them seem to be lacking in real experience outside politics or local government

Did she lie on her CV too, ureky she was vetted and had her qualifications and experience confirmed by her employer ? If not they are just as much to blame for employing her. If she's just exaggerating now to the public then she's just a liar..

luckylavender · 14/02/2025 15:29

Viviennemary · 13/02/2025 18:11

Seems like she is telling lies about her experience and previous work. And an enquiry into her expenses claims at one of her previous jobs. . And Labour supposed to be better than the Tories. Cant stand her anyway so I hope she will soon be out. This is all on BBC news tonight.

Don't believe everything you read. And read between the lines.

nearlylovemyusername · 14/02/2025 15:37

luckylavender · 14/02/2025 15:29

Don't believe everything you read. And read between the lines.

Show quote history

Can you elaborate more?

luckylavender · 14/02/2025 15:42

I think I was quite clear.

LlynTegid · 14/02/2025 15:45

I don't see her as a chancer. I just disagree with many of her decisions.

TheDogsMother · 14/02/2025 15:45

@MissMoneyFairy She initially described her role at HBOS as Economist and it has subsequently been changed to Retail Banking.

Original poster

Viviennemary · 14/02/2025 18:39

snookiesnax · 13/02/2025 23:48

There has to be a better way of governing a country than this ridiculous shitshow from all politicians, regardless of their political party.
Can't Norway take us over or something? The Baltic states seem sensible.

Anyone?.......😩

Be Putin soon the way things seem to be going

OP posts: