MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
There is a substantial amount of benefit/tax fraud that is effectively organised crime, lots of low level abuse of the system that amounts to millions/billions.
You'd think it would be fairly easy for the government to articulate that message. I doubt many people would have a problem with that.
So why then is Reeves instead saying things like “look closely at our welfare system, because if someone can work, they should work”. I doubt people involved in organised crime are going to be getting a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead.
There's nothing new in the Labour message of 'clamping down on benefit fraud' You'll have noticed recently in the news that there's a large constituency of folks in deprived and underfunded areas that have had the message "They're taking our jobs" and "They get houses and benefits given to them" when they complain about immigration. Regardless of the truth in both the size of benefits fraud and the nonsense about money jobs and housing being given to immigrants, the messages of "we're clamping down on it" gets heard in these areas.
Labour have historically (going back to the 30's) always had a message about the benefits and virtuousness of work and the move away from reliance on benefits. There's nothing new here.
Regarding 'benefit fraud*', it's worth knowing that the amount of benefits unclaimed by those who are legally entitled to them, is far greater than the amount allegedly lost to fraud:
https://policyinpractice.co.uk/missing-out-2024-23-billion-of-support-is-unclaimed-each-year/
So £23 billion v the £7.3 billion from the government's own figures.
*The actual figures for genuine provable fraud are much, much tinier. What the government might claim is 'fraud', could well not be. I believe they include figures for cases of claims that are stopped due to suspicion of ineligibility, which are often overturned on appeal. I don't know if the government includes the cost of investigating alleged fraud in its loss figures.
I once committed 'benefit fraud', many years ago. I was 18, and working 'full time' for a job agency that would scam us and ended up actually earning less than we'd get from signing on. So I signed on and with the dole money, was just about able to make ends meet. Surprise surprise, the agency wasn't declaring half the workers, and therefore paying no NI on our behalf, so we didn't even get that marked up as our contributions. A common story back in the days before Minimum Wage and computerised, traceable accounts. The agency actually encouraged workers to sign on, knowing that no trace of employment would be found. This enabled them to pay us such shit wages. Had I not broken the law, I'd have starved.
Very, very, very few people committing 'benefit fraud' are actually making anything out of it. The vast majority are just keeping their heads above water. A great case for a Universal Benefit system I'd have thought. Perhaps too radical an idea for this government though.
I see Streeting has practically creamed himself in his rush to chuck Nottingham NHS under the bus WRT Valdo Calocane.
Tech/IT 'wonder solution' from the private sector incoming...
How would you like him to have responded to the CQC report? “Nothing to see here”?
“The hard truth here… is that had the NHS
donebeen able to do its job, had there not been multiple fundamental failures, possibly due to under-resourcing, three innocent people might still be alive… that’s why, whilst I wouldn't necessarily use those words, I totally understand why they [the victim’s families] have accused the NHS of having blood on its hands."
There you go.
The report doesn’t highlight funding as an issue, so that would just be more deflection.
Funding isn't the same as resourcing.
In any case, I'm instinctively against higher-ups throwing their 'staff' under the bus. Particularly given the recent Tory way of denigrating anyone or anything that cannot make their lies true for them.
And, yes, I am aware of how that can go way too far the other way - Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Post Office etc. And I guess I'm also biased against Streeting because it is documented how close he is to private healthcare.
It's not a straightforward thing.
And I guess I’m also biased against Streeting because it is documented how close he is to private healthcare.
What documentation and where is the proof of 'closeness'?
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4504/registeredinterests
It is reasonable to assume that OPD and MPM are "close" to Streeting otherwise I can't imagine why they would bung him £175k
I’m instinctively against higher-ups throwing their ‘staff’ under the bus.
That’s what the report says. Zero accountability for those running the trust. It’s now the job of Streeting and his department to work out if they need to sort that at that trust and, more importantly, find out if changes need to be made to prevent a repeat of the failure at other trusts.
If that is the case then good - because I'm pretty damn sure that Calocane's treatment wasn't shoddy because his case workers were buggering off early on a Friday to play golf.
To declare my interest, my wife has worked in the NHS for nearly 30 years. She has seen the frog being boiled, the tiers of so-called management come and go, the false market model, the downgrading of previously clinical tasks to admin staff etc. In her current job she deals with staffing, skill levels and rotas etc - she sees first hand what happens when politicians are backed into corners by their lies and lash out at immigrant workers as deflection.
Rant over.
because I’m pretty damn sure that Calocane’s treatment wasn’t shoddy because his case workers were buggering off early on a Friday to play golf.
Given the overall lack of planning, care, communication, and lack of 'clarity of thinking' that the latest CQC report highlights. It may well have been better if they had done just routine work and then buggered off early to play golf. It does appear on reading the report that there was a systematic failure to keep this man safe (and by extension everyone around him). That they decided to discharge him back to his GP without telling the family or GP speaks of a chaotic dept. There may well be funding issues, but there's also basic clinical failures here.
I'm sure that some good will come of this - whether it will be enough good remains to be seen.
The NHS is constantly facing these kinds of challenges. What do you do with a surgeon who has 2% 'failure' rate on their operations with an acceptable rate of 1%, but does 15 ops a week. You've got four of these surgeons and a waiting list that is already deemed too long? The surgeon's failure rate is double the acceptable level. But if you suspend him/her that's 25% of your scheduled ops that need to be done by someone else.
The NHS is a dream political football for all sides. If I could be happy that a politician was coming to it without any agenda other than improvement, then fine. But, to be honest, I also simply do not trust Streeting.
Now for some light relief. In a move that simply reinforces my view of Thérèse Coffey as being a massively over-confident simpleton...
Apparently she applied for a top job, working at a European institution, under Rachel Reeves.
Quite what Ms Reeves thought of this as the application landed in her in-tray, I do not know. But I'll assume the Treasury needed to source a new keyboard...
But if you suspend him/her [sic]
Extend your analogy to Valdo. Would it have been better if a busier specialist had treated him properly as opposed to an incompetent one but on time? I think if you ask patients they'd rather, on the whole; wait. In the short term the extra work is frustrating, but it could give the failing surgeon time to update or retrain, and in the long run, you won't be faced with perhaps having to correct as many previous failures.
I also simply do not trust Streeting.
You're not alone. He has at least so far in his dealings with GPs, signalled a willingness to listen and reach an agreement. He's getting cautious approval so far from GPs/Partners at the practices I manage
The Valdo case is a tragic but extreme example of a system breaking due to being under resourced. It's also a fact that one of the consequences of living in a relatively free country is that we don’t lock people up easily or have constant state surveillance.
The Valdo case, like serious case reviews in child abuse cases, will highlight failures due to caseload, lack of training, lack of effective management and genuine human error.
And both are also examples where investment in early intervention saves greater cost/tragedy down the line.
It is reasonable to assume that OPD and MPM are “close” to Streeting otherwise I can’t imagine why they would bung him £175k
Is it reasonable, two individuals with 'links' to private healthcare provided donations to Streeting for the campaign, but by the way you use bung instead of donation kind of says there'll be bias in whatever happens.
Those donors gave money to Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis as well - In fact, they've given those two more money than Streeting, so I expect that both the Home Office and Security are also fatally compromised.
I think if you ask patients they’d rather, on the whole; wait.
In the case of Calocane this is about 180 degrees 'out' though.
His 'preference' was not to engage at all and time was, literally, of the essence. This is where healthcare sort of crosses over into policing...
there’ll be bias
My very obvious bias against Wes Streeting is totally irrelevant to whether he recieves financial backing from private healthcare providers or not. He makes his own entries in the House of Commons Register of Interests, not me.
And the donations are not from two "individuals" with links to private healthcare, as you falsely claim.
The House of Commons Register of Interests makes it absolutely clear that the donations are from limited companies. Here is the exact wording from the Register:
Name of donor: MPM Connect Ltd
Name of donor: OPD Group Ltd
Name of donor: MPM Connect Ltd (a company controlled by Peter Hearn)
Name of donor: OPD Group Ltd (a company controlled by Peter Hearn)
Name of donor: John Armitage
Please do a little research in future, especially around individual donations, hence why Peter Hearn has donated via two companies, one of which i believe only exists on paper as a branch of the parent company.
I don't know a lot about this particular debate but if a company donates money it is not the same as an individual donating money otherwise the donation could have simple been made by the individual.
A company is an entity.
I don’t know a lot about this particular debate but if a company donates money it is not the same as an individual donating money otherwise the donation could have simple been made by the individual.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
John Armitage (the second individual) made donations in his own name.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
So a company set up to funnel lobbying money to bribeable receptive politicians without oversight of where it is actually coming from and what is expected in return. Nothing to see here, move along......
Political funding and lobbying is a much bigger problem that FPTP in my opinion, I support proportional representation, but I think that it will be nearly as bad as FPTP if current lobbying and political financing rules continue as they are, sorting the money out should be the priority, then we can look at FPTP.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
Is it just me who is thinking "this set up does the exact opposite of reassuring me"?
Is it just me who is thinking “this set up does the exact opposite of reassuring me”?
Pretty much the same as what Liz Davies has done with JBC Defence Ltd to support Jeremy Corbyn over the last couple of years.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it less onerous on individuals declaring to HMRC.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it less onerous on individuals declaring to HMRC.
Of course it does.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it marginally less
onerous ontraceable back to individualsdeclaring to HMRC.
FTFY.
Because, of course, the corporate structure around these SPVs and their naming etc makes it immediately obvious who the actual person behind the donation is, right?
Or, to quote Wayne's World - NOT!
it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
I'm lovin the argument "it's okay it's a dodgy company which doesn't really exist set up simply to pay large amounts of money to senior Labour politicians, so what's wrong with that?"
The company has no staff or website and is registered at an office where the secretary says she has never heard of them.
The company's accounts do not disclose where it receives its funding, what it does or why it donates so heavily.
When Sky News went to the office in Hertfordshire, where the company is registered, the receptionist in the building denied any knowledge of MPM Connect.
She told Sky News she did not recognise the names of the two directors.
So dark money is donated to politicians from a non-existent company which no one knows where it gets its funding from.
Only a "biased" person would think there might be anything dodgy about that.
I’m lovin the argument “it’s okay it’s a dodgy company which doesn’t really exist set up simply to pay large amounts of money to senior Labour politicians, so what’s wrong with that?”
As @argee points out, that's exactly what Liz Davies did in order to pay Corbyn's legal fees - without your added pejoratives, obviously.
So what if somebody did it for Corbyn, that is clearly just the same. Why bring up Corbyn as an example?
^^^
Presumably that's at ernielynch for some kind of Corbyn angle.
It doesn't stop it looking dodgy as ****, though - whoever is doing it and for whatever purpose.
Yep, by providing further info it's set them off on another wild goose chase to find corruption, the reality is that the companies have his name all over them, he is not hiding it within a shell company and having donations provided through a lawyer, or third party, he has been donating to Labour for 20 years, almost £1 million i believe, he makes no secret he backs the 'centrist' element of Labour, so providing campaign funding to those mentioned is pretty much what you'd expect.
Again, reading up on him, and i am going back a bit for this thread, but his links to private healthcare are that he makes money in resourcing private healthcare, i believe he also has funding in medical equipment, not exactly mounting a takeover attempt of the NHS.
Peter Hearn ceased to be PWSC in September of 2023 of MPM Connect Ltd.
OPD Group Holdings is now the 'person' with SC.
Don't you just love company structure.
Liz Davies did in order to pay Corbyn’s legal fees
Not sure how a crowdfund with trustees is the same to be honest.
Why bring up Corbyn as an example?
Because they can't think of any other way to justify it?
I also simply do not trust Streeting.
Nor do I. Yet. Still very much unproven in my eyes. But I see nothing in his response to the CQC report that’s out of order. He’s getting on with his job, which isn’t to cover up for the management of the trust, but to expect and insist on them doing their job, and being accountable where they fail people. And, of course, to ensure that lessons learnt are applied to other trusts doing similar work if need be.
The excitement of 0.6% growth April to June eh? People now have to grab each morsel of economic data as a celebration of Tory economic success. (Down from Jan -Mar btw)
Reeves' doing nothing of merit at all - more sexy PFI for the 'clearly' under invested City of London in the shape of the Thames Crossing.
I guess she's desperate to show the success of a big project. Super efficient way of pretending to do it.
And she's looking at more sneaky red tape snipping in the City.
Labour really firing on a disasterous set of cylinders. Is this what a boring safe government does - Tory tinkering?
Don't worry Ms Reeves' the rest of the country is not as needy as London. We don't need the big projects.
Reeves is totally out of her depth with the magnitude of the UK's problems.
Is this what a boring safe government does – Tory tinkering?
Yes, and we knew that was exactly what we would be getting. While it is nice not to have to endure Tory MPs in power and spouting shit that is not really going to make much difference to those who were not privileged enough to have that as something on their radar.
Await the excuses of it only being n weeks since they have been in power but as n gets bigger those excuses are going to get very weak.
Peter Hearn ceased to be PWSC in September of 2023 of MPM Connect Ltd.
OPD Group Holdings is now the ‘person’ with SC.
Don’t you just love company structure.
Again, his company, directed by his son, it's just restructuring for business.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it's not a dodgy practice, it's pretty standard and advised in most instances, what used to be dodgy practices was hiding your donations via companies, so having a shell company set up with no links to the individual, so that donations being made appeared to be from another source.
Because they can’t think of any other way to justify it?
I thought it was to highlight the practice was widespread, which is not necessarily the same as justifying it. Even so, needs to be totally reformed regardless of donors or recipients.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it’s not a dodgy practice,
Not sure why you think it can't be dodgy just because Corbyn was involved?
Remember, a lot of us liked Corbyn because of his policies and approach rather than the man himself.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it’s not a dodgy practice
Corbyn is the epitome of integrity ?
It was more his barrister, and friend, again, it's gone off topic, but these companies are just vehicles, set up to allow donations to be done via individuals businesses, or to have a specific account to deal with this type of activity.
The real reason for mentioning it in the first place is that the two individuals who donated to Streeting with 'links' to private healthcare aren't actually in business to take over the NHS, one supports the private healthcare industry, the other is a venture capitalist who has funds in private healthcare.
one supports the private healthcare industry, the other is a venture capitalist who has funds in private healthcare.
And between them they have given the Health Secretary £175k?
I wonder why?
MPM Connect Ltd
Nature of business:
"Activities of head offices"
Lmfao.
Just wondering which one is the venture capitalist?
John Armitage is the venture capitalist, he donated as an individual.
Corbyn is the epitome of integrity ?
For clarity I am not suggesting that Corbyn is dodgy, I am just surprised that argee, of all people , seems to be arguing that something must be above board if Corbyn did it.
Although as rone has already pointed out it is quite hard to make a link between small crowdfunding donations from thousands of individuals to deal with large unexpected legal costs, and £175k from just two individuals, with interests in the private healthcare, to the now Secretary of State for Health
I wonder why?
I don't think there's ever been a pause in the claim that "They" are going to privatise the NHS at some point. Two things, Thing One; the Tories were in power for 14 years, and now it's Labour, neither of these govts have shown any indication that want to privatise Hospital provision, It would, by any measure be massively unpopular, and go against the tide of the realisation that the swathe of privatisations that happened over the last 30-40 years was a stupid plan, and there's generally a move towards more oversight and more govt control from both parties. and Thing Two. Without the existing private healthcare providers; 99% of GPs and dentists, every high street pharmacist, audiologist and optician, the NHS would've fallen over on day two.
Is the issue perhaps that amateur armchair political and economic commentators have set out very fixed opinions on what this government will/won't do on a cycling forum and are desperately looking for anything that will make them look correct - whichever side of the argument.
Yes, this is my first day on the forum/Internet.
Thing One; the Tories were in power for 14 years, and now it’s Labour, neither of these govts have shown any indication that want to privatise Hospital provision
Uh huh. Does Hinchingbrooke ring any bells?
It did hit the problem that it wasnt profitable enough and hence the experiment ended for the time being. Its best to selectively cherrypick profitable services then take on the high risk stuff. Which the 2012 act allowed for giving a massive increase in private provision under the NHS banner. Has the bonus when it fails the NHS gets blamed and strengthens the argument for private provision as well.
Thing Two. Without the existing private healthcare providers; 99% of GPs and dentists
Ah yes dentistry. That shining light of NHS provision.
I also wouldnt be announcing GPs are a sign of how great private provision is either but hey ho.
Is the issue perhaps that amateur armchair political and economic commentators have set out very fixed opinions on what this government will/won’t do on a cycling forum and are desperately looking for anything that will make them look correct – whichever side of the argument.
You don't know who I am and I don't know who you are., why would I care about looking correct? I just want better than Labour are offering, that is all.
Nick your long answer firstly doesn't answer the question which you apparently set out to answer......why have these two individuals/companies, with interests in private healthcare, donated £175k to the Secretary of State for Health
And secondly it completely ignores the straightforward fact that Wes Streeting has publicly stated that he intends to use the private sector to cut the NHS backlog - not an expansion of the public sector. So private sector involvement in the NHS will increase.
Now you might think that is a great idea and the way to go but you can't really deny that is the intention. Although you should bare in mind what is the primary motivation of the private sector and remember the staggering disaster was/is PFI
and remember the staggering disaster was/is PFI
Oh, this again? Did you miss the last time I pointed out that the entirety of existing PFI accounts for 2% of the overall NHS budget. If you'd like to find out how much either 1. running NHS properties, or 2 building new ones would've cost otherwise, there might be some mileage in calling it a "staggering disaster" until then, it's just nonsense.
No I completely remembered that fairly uniquely you believe that PFI wasn't a staggering disaster, which is why I included the link to the Guardian article.
It is pretty much universally accepted that PFI was a staggering disaster for the NHS
Also remember that it doesn't need to be a wholesale trumpeted privatisation for a small number of people to get very rich indeed. We're not talking Thatcher-style sell-offs here, we're talking about hyenas trying to bite a lump off of a big wounded animal.
Nick your long answer firstly doesn’t answer the question which you apparently set out to answer……why have these two individuals/companies, with interests in private healthcare, donated £175k to the Secretary of State for Health
It's a simple answer, same with every other donor, the donors are politically aligned to the party and/or MP, it's why the unions don't donate to the tories, or why two members of the Sainsbury family donate to different parties.
And secondly it completely ignores the straightforward fact that Wes Streeting has publicly stated that he intends to use the private sector to cut the NHS backlog – not an expansion of the public sector. So private sector involvement in the NHS will increase.
This again will be an answer only available to the department in charge, it's not some off the cuff response, there must be a reason, the same as in my industry where we employ contractors or consultants to support civil servants, it can simply be a case of having some 'route to green' plan, i have no idea what that is for the NHS, but i guess Streeting has been provided it, agrees to it and is providing responses for this.
I just want better than Labour are offering, that is all.
Me too, but I'm waiting for the practical detail that will be in the budget, rather than shooting them for whatever they said in the election, to get elected, and since then, to keep the Press happy.
The devil will be in that detail.
it’s why the unions don’t donate to the tories
Yes everyone knows why trade unions donate to the Labour Party (and the clearest most above board donations) because trade unions believe that donating to the Labour Party serves their members best interests.
I am glad that you have made the comparison - I totally agree. These two companies/individuals have obviously donated thousands of pounds to the current Secretary of State for Health because they believe that it will serve their best interests.
This again will be an answer only available to the department in charge, it’s not some off the cuff response
I wasn't asking a question, I was pointing out that Wes Streeting has said that he will use the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog. And it wasn't an off the cuff comment btw, it was a carefully considered policy which he has defended.
Streeting is committed to significantly expand the role of the private sector within the NHS. Whether or not this is desirable is debatable but his commitment to that policy is not.
We'll find out soon hopefully, and if it's a negative outcome for the NHS or elsewhere, then it'll be time to condemn the decisions, just not doing it before anythings been done, there's nearly 5 years for them to succeed, fail or be indifferent.
Me too, but I’m waiting for the practical detail that will be in the budget, rather than shooting them for whatever they said in the election, to get elected, and since then, to keep the Press happy.
The devil will be in that detail.
I'm not sold on this - there is no indication that it is going to be 'good' detail. The budget BTW will be past the golden first 100 days. The indications Reeve's has made so far are utterly inexplicable. She needs to seriously change her trajectory.
(At which point would they give up keeping the press happy - supposed to be running a country? I've always mainted for the right it doesn't matter what Labour do - they will still be attacked by right.)
I’m not sold on this – there is no indication that it is going to be ‘good’ detail.
I'm pretty sure whatever they announce you won't happy, nor will certain others on here. Brace yourselves we're not in a great position in this country and chucking money at stuff won't fix the broken culture that has permeated down from government through all layers of the public sector.
It's going to be a long slow slog to repair the Tory damage and frankly your expectations of what they could announce are wildly optimistic and in a similar vein anything they have announced you've immediately decided won't work. Change takes time, and it's going to take a couple of years for the dial to even start moving, expecting massive immediate improvement is naïve at best.
I’m pretty sure whatever they announce you won’t happy, nor will certain others on here.
That is probably because you are confusing your own personal determination to support "your side/team" no matter what position they take with other people's attitudes.
There is no evidence that anyone is, for example, criticising Wes Streeting's expansion of the role of the private sector in the NHS simply because he announced it, and that if he announced more public sector involvement that would be equally criticised.
I must admit to chuckling at the elephant trap set and that argee fell into.
Unions - millions of members and a tiny donation per member - acting in their interests.
A couple of rich blokes - huge donation per 'member' - acting in their interests.
Which do we think more likely to be acting in the best interests of everyone? Do we think this is the political version of trickle down economics?
Now, let me think...
Did you miss the last time I pointed out that the entirety of existing PFI accounts for 2% of the current overall NHS budget.
After the contracts expire???
That is probably because you are confusing your own personal determination to support “your side/team” no matter what position they take with other people’s attitudes.
On the contrary, I'm not going to rush to support or condemn either side. We are 6 weeks in to a 10 year battle to try and undo the damage that the Tories have done to this country.
Just seems premature to immediately condemn practically every statement from the government until the budget has painted a broader outline of the plan. The fact that the summer recess has delayed that is unfortunate.
I'm very disappointed at the way Starmer has rolled back on my initial hopes from when he became leader. I am glad we no longer have nasty Tory government. How disappointed I will remain going forwards we shall gave to see.
It’s early days with the Labour Government, but already Reeves has achieved what she set out to do in politics: get photographed striding through Washington like she’s in West Wing. Go Rachel!
(yeah I know it’s not Washington but that doesn’t fit with my narrative)
https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1823639952111915508
Chancellor @RachelReevesMP was in North America last week, where she met with pension funds & industry leaders to talk about action the government is taking to attract UK investment, boost growth & make every part of the country better off.
Every single time something is put up about her - it's absolute posturing economic garbage.
She has the power to make the country better off without this ridiculous approach.
The last person we need in charge of government finances is in charge of government finances.
The 'Canadian Model'. PFI by another name - adding a layer of inefficiency by hoping the private sector jumps in to cream the cost of doing a job at a higher rate.
She would have been better served visiting the USA where the government created a stimulus directly instead of poncing around with 'growth funds.'
The root cause of Canada's declining long-term growth in GDP per capita—recent and projected—is very low or negative growth in labour productivity reflecting weak investment in physical and human capital per worker
Canada sit below the UK in growth and export far too many resources. Canada's GDP is a 12th of the USA. Canada's economy has grown 4% in a decade. USA's 47%.
But yeah enjoy Trudo's growth fund.
The only upside keeping this shallow approach up - is she will fail. Then hopefully can be replaced by someone a **** sight less '90s' in their understanding of economics.
Honestly the nerve of this twit.
There's a real lot of hate for Reeves on here. People either actually know her well enough to have an informed opinion on her and her personality, or enjoy projecting.
There’s a real lot of hate for Reeves on here. People either actually know her well enough to have an informed opinion on her and her personality, or enjoy projecting.
I'm not having that. It's based on what she's offering up.
Did anyone try to protect Lizz Truss in the same way or was it a free for all?
I don't know Reeves as a person - she seems a very confident articulate type but in her role she's doing the wrong things for a country so desperately in a mess.
The hate for the Tories was justified which makes the focus on Labour greater in my opinion.
She's also speaking with more than a whiff of Thatcher. I'm sorry but it's really hard to like that sort of thing, given its probable devastation on lives.
(EDIT my Canadian numbers were not correct but couldn't edit them in time.
CAD GDP/Capita 2014 50,956 - 2024 GDP/Capita 44,965 est
USA GDP/Capita 2014 55,123 - 2024 GDP/capita 85,373 est
Fwiw.
Sigh!
How is everyone enjoying their new 'boring' and 'serious' tory govt? Rachel Reeves seems to be on a mission to be the most hated chancellor in decades. Starmer won't be far behind her in being the most hated PM.
Ed Siliband pretending that things are out of his control when it comes the nation's energy prices. (The government being the effective 'regulator' of Ofgem - doh.) Not to mention the fact that Labour campaigned on the price cap increases being a Tory problem.
They also put a lot of effort into claiming they will put a stop to these increases.
This, and the ridiculously unnecessary winter fuel payment adjustment, and the increase in winter prices are shaping up to be an absolute mess for the country.
Labour appear to have no idea what it means to begin to fix things.
The Tories are going to look generous compared.
This idea the government can't fix things or affect interest rates for example, and spend to invest in the country because of it just being the way it is - for the birds. But hey made up fiscal rules are the way to go.
Apparently pragmatic - I'd say pro-failing the electorate.
Awaits chant of "but they have only been in power for 50 days"
Maybe we need a counter on the thread to show the number of days and then an arbitrary number when it is deemed okay to criticise Starmers glorious Labour Party?
I can guarantee that for the usual suspects there will never be a time when it will be okay to be in any way critical of Starmer.
I fully expect to hear "But the Tories were in government for 14 years, you can't expect Starmer to do much in just 4 years", and "I always said it would take at least 2 terms before Labour could turn things round".
The time they will give Starmer before they feel it is acceptable to criticise him will exceed the time that he is PM, for sure.
I can guarantee that for the usual suspects there will never be a time when it will be okay to be in any way critical of Starmer.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'usual suspects' are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off, rather than a guardian article based purely on hypothesis rather than fact.
The ‘Canadian Model’. PFI by another name – adding a layer of inefficiency by hoping the private sector jumps in to cream the cost of doing a job at a higher rate.
The Canadian Model that she wants is their pension model where pension funds invest in the infrastructure that she wants for the UK. The Canadian pension system is rated B, the same as the UK, "A system that has a sound structure, with many good features but has some areas for improvement that differentiate it from an A-grade system"
Pension funds would be better under a better system https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-rachel-reeves-plan-to-boost-britains-pension-pots-236984
After the contracts expire???
+1 PFI has been, continues to be and will be a financial disaster in Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66543735
Maybe, just maybe, the ‘usual suspects’ are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off, rather than a guardian article based purely on hypothesis rather than fact.
That would be Labour's current self-imposed fiscal rules. You're simply choosing to ignore them. The irony is they're built on a mythical misunderstanding of economic data and forecasting.
Imagine that.
I think Reeves has already shown her intent. So yeah, sure, she has time to make it better.
But I don't think you're reading the situation correctly if you think Labour understand the economy and what to do.
Pension funds would be better under a better system
Ahem leveraged LDIS.
Whenever you look at the workings of the financial system you basically see folk extracting money supplied by the government (in the first instance ) in the gilt markets - and then basically gambling the nuts of it.
The word investment is a bit too loose in nearly all examples.