Rachel Reeves

[waynekerr55]

There's certainly more of a right leaning narrative to their news output

- Kuenssberg and her pathetic teenage crush on Johnson
- Mason acting as BBC's Reform spokesman
- Fiona "Stanley Johnson only slapped his wife once" Bruce
- Robbie Gibb's interference from the board.

And, back on point. The Guardian is probably one of the few left - leaning news outlets. There aren't that many

 

[rockinj]

The thing is it’s not a right or left wing thing. It’s a question of fairness.

Before his populist age there was more of a sense of fair play. But the tribalism now is off the charts.

Brexit, Johnson, trump etc etc its all skewed

 

[rockinj]

And this idea that the Chancellor should know every fine detail of every financial matter. Come on give your head a wobble.

 

[MajorR]

And this idea that the Chancellor should know every fine detail of every financial matter. Come on give your head a wobble.

Absolutely. She’s just been appointed to a major position in Government, has to sort out the finances, get her feet under the table get her team moving etc etc meanwhile the letting agent has been asked to sort the licence out, has agreed to organise it but failed to follow through and she’s being hung out to dry. It’s a nonsense.

 

[Pompeyjack]

And, back on point. The Guardian is probably one of the few left - leaning news outlets. There aren't that many

Thank you Wayne , I will try The Guardian too. I do like to read "both wings" so that I can get both interpretations of a story.

 

[PSumbler]

In a world where I suspect that at least 600 of the politicians that were elected to "serve" are probably doing some things that they shouldn't be for their own personal gain I find it incredible we have a 10 page thread on whether the chancellor should resign over a letting agent failing to set up a necessary licence.

As has been pointed out should she resign/be pushed now the impact on the economy would hit many of us and possibly to the tunes of tens of thousands of pounds when the markets react.

It's just nonsense and pretty much standard of how we work in the UK these days - the media start a witch hunt and loads jump on it with no real understanding of why or the longer term impact,

 

[Pentyrchjack]

Not sure why Reeves would move out of the family home and rent it out when the Chancellor's position could be reshuffled at any point, thus losing the grace and favour properties at her disposal.

Doesn't strike me as good planning.

 

[monmouth]

Not sure why Reeves would move out of the family home and rent it out when the Chancellor's position could be reshuffled at any point, thus losing the grace and favour properties at her disposal.

Doesn't strike me as good planning.

. FFS

 

[MajorR]

Not sure why Reeves would move out of the family home and rent it out when the Chancellor's position could be reshuffled at any point, thus losing the grace and favour properties at her disposal.

Doesn't strike me as good planning.

Get a grip mun, it makes total sense to rent it out. We’re talking about extra cash to the tune of £3k per month.
Do you honestly think Starmer would reshuffle his cabinet that soon, and if he did she’d probably get another post within the cabinet. There’s plenty of other government properties that could accommodate her short term.

 

[Pentyrchjack]

Get a grip mun, it makes total sense to rent it out. We’re talking about extra cash to the tune of £3k per month.
Do you honestly think Starmer would reshuffle his cabinet that soon, and if he did she’d probably get another post within the cabinet. There’s plenty of other government properties that could accommodate her short term.

Socialist Chancellor's renting out property for more than a nurse takes home every month.

 

[JackSomething]

Socialist Chancellor's renting out property for more than a nurse takes home every month.

Describing Reeves as a Socialist Chancellor is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. She'd have been a perfectly acceptable Conservative Chancellor in days gone by, before politics went crazy.

 

[monmouth]

Describing Reeves as a Socialist Chancellor is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. She'd have been a perfectly acceptable Conservative Chancellor in days gone by, before politics went crazy.

And if you want a fairer distribution of funds, you obviously have to be on the breadline.

Zillions of Tory c***s “earned” more than a Nurse earns in a year before getting out of bed yesterday and man of the people Fartage and his billionaire Deform Ltd mates made more than a nurse earned in 30 years sitting on their racist scummy arses.

Reeves is the problem though, obviously.

If people called her a poor chancellor, too wedded to treasury orthodoxy, and taxing for accounting not investment, I’d agree. All the right wing personality, misogynistic, fash tripe gets on my wick. Get off twatter and get a life boys and girls.

 

[JackSomething]

And if you want a fairer distribution of funds, you obviously have to be on the breadline.

Zillions of Tory c***s “earned” more than a Nurse earns in a year before getting out of bed yesterday and man of the people Fartage and his billionaire Deform Ltd mates made more than a nurse earned in 30 years sitting on their racist scummy arses.

Reeves is the problem though, obviously.

If people called her a poor chancellor, too wedded to treasury orthodoxy, and taxing for accounting not investment, I’d agree. All the right wing personality, misogynistic, fash tripe gets on my wick. Get off twatter and get a life boys and girls.

Apparently she was the driving force behind the idea to cut the tax-free ISA allowance in an attempt to push people towards investing in stocks and shares rather than savings accounts (which has thankfully gone quiet for now).

That alone makes me dislike her as a Chancellor, I don't need to worry about these manufactured 'controversies' that the right wing mob are frothing at the mouth about.

 

[monmouth]

Apparently she was the driving force behind the idea to cut the tax-free ISA allowance in an attempt to push people towards investing in stocks and shares rather than savings accounts (which has thankfully gone quiet for now).

That alone makes me dislike her as a Chancellor, I don't need to worry about these manufactured 'controversies' that the right wing mob are frothing at the mouth about.

I just can’t understand the ‘stocks and shares’ logic. Forcing people to take more risk, and not in start up funds (which would be even riskier). So all the money would go into trades on existing funds, or creating more units, and fund manager bonuses. Nothing would go to invest in actual companies. I keep thinking there really must be something obvious I’m just not seeing (not for the first time). I’m sure Lisa will put me right if so