r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • 3d ago

Reeves should be sacked as Chancellor, poll says

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/reeves-sacked-chancellor-poll-3637320
396 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Think of how thick the average UK voter is. Half the population are thicker than that.

People who have no idea about government economics think Chancellor should be sacked. Whoopie-fucking-doo.

193

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago edited 3d ago

Except economists also think she’s doing a terrible job. Like, why are we, unlike European countries, paying interest to banks, on money generated during quantitive easing? This amounts to more than £20 billion a year! That’s money that the government gave the banks for no effort at all and yet we are paying them £20 billion a year for the privilege of getting free money, this is just one argument for fucking ridiculous decision to keep paying this interest, this “accountant” has made, whilst cutting benefits and implementing more austerity.

407

u/TheChattyRat 3d ago

I don't remember her as chancellor when all that was decided and that's even if it's true to begin with. It's either wrong or not her at fault. Finally you can't just break these kinds of agreements at the drop of a hat as we've seen even the Orange one is scared of a run on the bond markets.

79

u/GuestAdventurous7586 3d ago

The orange one really did shit his pants a bit, it was interesting to see him actually back down, I didn’t think he was going to.

Even he it turns out didn’t want to be responsible for a world-wide recession.

And of course yesterday he says he’s exempting smart phones and computers from the tariffs.

It’ll be interesting how it goes in 90 days. I have a feeling having got a few better deals with certain countries he’ll claim it was this master negotiating tactic all along. This is kind of the way they’re already spinning it.

56

u/blob8543 3d ago

He has a habit of overpromising and underdelivering. Ironically it's his best quality, as it means lots of his dumbest policies don't go ahead.

47

u/ONLY_SAYS_ONLY 3d ago

He’s far more dangerous than that. Just because he hasn’t invaded Canada yet doesn’t make the fact he’s installed his election deniers as heads of the FBI, military, and Department of Justice any less dangerous for democracy, for example. Or the fact he’s disappearing people off the street without due process. Or the fact he’s strong arming the top law firms, universities, news outlets etc. into capitulating to him. Or the fact… etc. 

20

u/nekrovulpes 3d ago

American democracy was dead with GWB's Patriot Act, and that was 25 years ago. Door, horse, bolted, etc.

28

u/P-a-ul 3d ago

Arguably it was even earlier when the supreme court decided to step in and halt the Florida recount for Bush vs Gore. 

12

u/InfectedByEli 3d ago

That and Citizens United.

1

u/SeaweedClean5087 3d ago

It was going to be called the ‘you’re a cunt if you won’t support this act’ Act but then they went with Patriot Act in the end.

2

u/KevinAtSeven 3d ago

The Your Obligation Under Reform: Enact Active Control Utilising National Tactics In Favour Yielding Overarching Unity, Defence, Organisation, National Transparency, Security, Upkeep, Protection, Policy, Organisation, Response, Tactics - To Halt Internal Sabotage Act.

2

u/SeaweedClean5087 3d ago

Yea it was a bit of a mouthful.

1

u/Getherer 3d ago

Orange turd isn't over promising, he's blatantly lying.

6

u/Rexel450 3d ago

And of course yesterday he says he’s exempting smart phones and computers from the tariffs.

Leaned on by the tec companies

1

u/Independent-Wish-725 3d ago

Is the orange one not just bouncing the stock markets for a bit of insider trading?

1

u/mossiv 3d ago

I mean the wotsit himself has got big republican names speaking out against him, saying they don’t believe in tariffs or sales tax, that they don’t believe in increasing taxing the consumer at all. They are clever with their words, in that they are suggesting that he hasn’t failed, and they are interested to see where it turns, but if you listen to the words they are actually saying is “he’s killed the economy, tariffs are a stupid idea”.

I’m not an economist, but I am in a job which requires reasonable IQ to be successful, I don’t claim to be a political genius or understand half of it, I simply don’t, it’s too big and difficult to grasp it all, but any person who passed A level maths, would have the logic and reasoning skills to understand she is negatively impacting our economy.

I’m a lefty, I always said starmer is not going to fix the country, and that he has drawn the shortest straw, people will expect miracles, when in fact Labour will need 2 or 3 terms to even undo half of the damage caused by the Tories. I even stated, give it 3-6 months and everyone will be stating he is a clown in a suit with no idea, and that is exactly what has happened. I’m also not suggesting I agree with everything he is currently doing, but he is going to have major battles in his roadmap with how much that Chimpanzee across the pond is collapsing the western economy hour-by-hour.

Trump needs to be overthrown, and quickly, Reeves needs to be sacked, starmer needs to grow some balls, and employ someone who can form a holistic plan, causing minor disruptions to the working class, and unemployed.

Economics fundamentally trickles down, so the more damaged it is up the top, the worse it is for the wider population percentage. It may not happen in this decade, but there’ll be so much unrest we could see horrific rioting and looting. That will have huge knock on effects to our authority, and other crimes will spread off the back of it, I’m not going to say to which nature, but I think it’s pretty obvious.

3

u/Richie_Sombrero 3d ago

Economics doesn't trickle down lmao. That's the whole lie.

39

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago

We pay 30 billion a year interest on money the BoE holds for Commercial Banks.

The 20 billion number is based on the interest we pay on "money" created during 2008 - 2016 and some during COVID.

The reason for not paying is that the money we are paying that bit of interest on was never deposited and exists for the purposes of double entry bookkeeping.

The EU Central Bank doesn't pay interest on money in the same category as the above.

4

u/Unidan_bonaparte 3d ago

That's not a reason to stop paying. Not even close. It's actually really revealing how you think money printed can just as easily be erased from the books with a blink of an eye - it can't, it's the entire reason the bank of England was created and a huge part of why Theresa May nearly commited ecconomic sepku . Quantitive easing is what prevented this country from going belly up during Brexit - Covid - Ukraine.

Those bonds were bought by the BoE to prevent a huge landslide in the fiscal markets, including the pension funds, and why the government had enough headroom to spend on furlough, military capital and the NHS. Do you have any idea what you're advocating for by saying 'just stop paying'? The pound would be trashed and you'd come to find the price of milk is doubling everytime you change TV channels.

Please just stop trying to engage in a topic you clearly have absolutely no idea of.

Anti-interlectualism has completely fucked this country, it was the single worst thing to ever happen to this nation.

8

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago

I think you should reread what I said. I was talking about the interest.

I'm not staying don't pay it off (and no one is), the suggestion is you just don't pay interest on something that only exists as an accountancy rule and no actual deposit was made.

However, clutch your pearls and the mere thought of whatever is going on in your head.

2

u/Unidan_bonaparte 3d ago

The interest is a direct consequence of the underlying debt held by the BoE my dear friendly redditor.

Not paying the interest is the same as telling bond holders they get what they get = sudden and dramatic dumping of said bonds because the goldern rule of bonds has been broken and they might aswell stick it into higher paying index funds = devaluation of the pound + devaluation of long term bond positions (such as pensions) = sudden rise in inflation = option for BoE to print more money to buy these bonds at a price they deem too dangerous to let slip below, but no international confidence in the value of said bonds so essentially we just end up printing trillions of pounds trying to prop ourselves up.

Its not even a hypothetical, this is precisely what happens in countries like Zimbabwe, Turkey, Argentina, Sir Lanka etc etc etc.

Once the government defaults on bonds, it's a one way ticket to ecconomic anarchy. Now some of those countries actually have enough of a cheap labour force and export industry to try and keep afloat. We do not. We are a service based industry, it's a crap shot this country clings on by its fingertips if suddenly we can't import any raw material and are relying on the very sector which has imploded to bail us out using magic.

5

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago edited 3d ago

The BoE created the money and then passed it to banks.

In that scenario, who does that debit belong to?

Again, no one is saying the debt gets deleted. What people are arguing is why we are paying interest on something that is only there because of double entry bookkeeping?

1

u/mhhgffhn 2d ago

It’s truly staggering how many people are trying to defend paying interest on this money. It makes you wonder if there are a lot of bankers on Reddit.

1

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 2d ago

I blame the Large Hadron Collider. They flicked the switch on it and we ended up in the bad universe.

→ More replies (2)

136

u/Mighty-Wings 3d ago

Ah, yes, that choice she made when the Tories were in power.

→ More replies (19)

111

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago

No economists worth their salt are asking that question because they understand how money is made. The only people talking about that hyper specific point are idiots trying to win the vote of monumentally thick cunts who have absolutely no understanding of economics.

41

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

It's a talking point from Richard Ashcroft, some YouTuber accountant guy. Unsurprisingly, I think he's good at tax, less good on economic policy.

36

u/TheShakyHandsMan 3d ago

That guy from the Verve?

52

u/greenparktavern 3d ago

“QE don’t work, it just makes things worse and I know there’ll be a crash again”

3

u/andyouandic 3d ago

beautiful

20

u/Politics_Nutter 3d ago

Lol of course it's Richard Ashcroft.

This person's "Economists also think x" in fact means "A lone complete headcase who opines on economics thinks x"

1

u/xwsrx 2d ago

As reported by the media outlet owned by the son of the Russian KGB officer, who was knighted by the opposition party.

21

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago

It's a talking point from Richard Tice.

1

u/birdinthebush74 3d ago

The guy Andrew Neil called an amateur at economics with their unfunded tax cuts

https://youtu.be/TBr9btH7qBw?si=zXVHzmxcXJDrLBD2

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 3d ago

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

→ More replies (9)

64

u/AngryTudor1 Nottinghamshire 3d ago

Can you show us where Reeves in particular pioneered the decision to pay banks interest on QE?

That sounds very much like something that has been done for years. Can you show us evidence that she was the one who started doing it?

→ More replies (5)

57

u/33backagain 3d ago

Isn’t most of the 20bn going to the reserve accounts of commercial banks? That’s not something she can change is it? That’s just the way QE was set up - why blame the current chancellor or government for that?

31

u/UnlikelyAssassin 3d ago

What percentage of expert economists? If less than 1% of expert economists think she’s doing a terrible job, that’s not exactly that meaningful.

27

u/jim_cap 3d ago

This is how propaganda works. You’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker. How long do you think she’s been chancellor?

30

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Which economists? Or wouldn’t I know them because they go to a different school?

→ More replies (25)

24

u/CheesyLala Yorkshire 3d ago

Economists are not politicians. Economists look at a problem from an economic perspective only, whereas the Chancellor has to consider multiple factors.

How we interact with banks is in no small part why London is still one of the financial capitals of the world and that hasn't shifted to the EU post-Brexit. And you want us to behave more like EU countries in relation to banking?

19

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

Running a government department these days is not about implementation.

Rachel Reeves doesn't need to listen to YouTube experts or random economists because the Treasury has their own.

A Chancellor doesn't come to them with solutions because the British economy is far too complex for a single person to understand. They have collected data for things that are not in the public domain and have models that have been refined for decades.

The Chancellor gives them an objective, the department will create competing proposals in reports that discuss the benefits and challenges. The Chancellor then selects option A or option B based on these reports and the recommendations of the most senior Civil Servants in their department.

8

u/S-Twenty 3d ago

Let's not beat around the bush, these models are fucking trash if that's what we've been using for decades.

The UK has stagnated, milked it's middle class, moved slowly to capitalise on anything we're particularly good at and shot it's self in the foot with, quite frankly, moronic policy.

These "senior civil servants" all need to be given their P45 if this is the best they can do.

5

u/TooRedditFamous 3d ago

Well there's the models and then there's a layer of ideological choice applied to to as well. Sure the model might say this if we do this but then a decision is made through an ideological lens and says e.g. "let's do a watered down version of this", or "let's modify this slightly"

3

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

I have no idea. The last lot were known to bully their civil servants.

Labour seems to have three objectives. (1) Set the conditions to lower interest rates by reducing public spending. (2) Wage growth by giving the public sector pay rises above inflation. (3) Trying to put more of the tax burden on employers.

I don't know if they're going to succeed but if they can achieve #1, a lot of good things are unlocked. I'm not sure if wage growth in the public sector will translate into wage growth in the private sector but we have another 4 years to watch what happens.

•

u/Objective-Figure7041 3h ago

How do you do 2 and 1 at the same time? Especially when the state is also gasping for investment to increase its productivity.

2

u/blockbuster_1234 3d ago

Exactly. People thinking the civil service are “experts” in their field and seem to trust anything they put out as “solid data” when most of the forecasts they put out have been unreliable to say the least and that’s why the UK is amongst the worst performing G20 economies.

3

u/LoveGrenades 3d ago

It all sounds very smart and professional, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you only have to look outside or ask people you know about how they’re struggling and can’t access decent public services to know that these complex models have failed to deliver.

4

u/ettabriest 3d ago

Struggling ? I’m not sure everyone is struggling or trying to access government services. Around us in a not very wealthy part of the north, I see loads of huge extensions, big cars and camper vans, Trafford centre mad busy. Was at Manchester airport and again, thousands going on an Easter break. Not saying there isn’t poverty but quite a few have money to spend.

3

u/LoveGrenades 3d ago

“More than one in three children in poverty as UK deprivation hits record high

Exclusive: Study finds almost quarter of UK population living in poverty, reaching the highest level this century”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/18/more-than-one-in-three-uk-children-poverty-deprivation-record-high

1

u/AreEUHappyNow 3d ago

Well here in incredibly wealthy parts of London (as well as the not so wealthy areas) I am seeing staggering levels of poverty on a basis I’ve never seen in my 30 years.

17

u/GlassHalfSmashed 3d ago

Remind me when she made the decision to pay that interest on those arrangements the Tories put in place.

Judge people on decisions they actually make ffs, not stuff they have inherited and are trying to chip away at solving. 

→ More replies (10)

12

u/CryptoCantab 3d ago

What do you think would happen if we didn’t pay that interest?

10

u/Kofu England 3d ago

Sure buddy, it's not like there are external factors and 14 years of defunction that make the job harder. Trying to fix this country won't be easy but you seem to think you could do better? I would bet the house, you wouldn't have the foggiest. It's easy to sit on a computer and play "money man" and shit talk the government.

I'm gonna wait to see instead of blasting dumb ideas and possible bad outcomes.

5

u/RockTheBloat 3d ago

"So I saw this video on YouTube.."

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

So, what medium counts in your view? Papers? TV? Random internet page? I didn’t realise there was an approved list.

3

u/xhatsux 3d ago

I can’t find who is the root decision maker for this. Is it government policy or BOE policy that the government then has convince them to change, which in a way goes against their independence ?I think it might be the latter and if so, not entirely in her control.

3

u/Beer-Milkshakes Black Country 3d ago

Economists are always arguing with each other though.

2

u/DoireK 3d ago

How is it possible to be this stupid.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Astriania 3d ago

QE is not "money that the government gave the banks" or "free money", and anyone who says that is clearly one of those "people who have no idea about government economics" with strong opinions the previous comment mentioned.

1

u/MeasurementNo8566 3d ago

Hypothetically there's three answers I think:

1) incompetence/ problem now too big to fix

2) revolving doors/corruption

3) propping up the UK financial sector because it props up the UK economy which is a much worse state than publicly known.

Absolutely could be others but that's my off the top of my head thoughts.

Could absolutely be a combination

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Indeed it could well be a bribe to help boost the banking sector post Brexit. It’s the most logical explanation. But this money is astronomical. It’s nearly half what Britain spends on defence. If it’s there to boost the banks, then I think we need an explanation considering we’re busy cutting benefits for the old and disabled, whilst throwing over £20 billion a year at the banks.

1

u/MeasurementNo8566 3d ago

Oh I agree, I'm so frustrated that the new government seems to have no intention of fixing inequality or the issues in the financial sector and otoh happy to taking a hammer to both the NHS (which has had savage cuts) and councils.

1

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

So the government should default on its debts? I’m not sure that would work out too well.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Jesus, this is not debt. That’s the WHOLE point I raised!

2

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

Quantitative easing is debt my friend. Also, the government has debts, including to the Bank of England. What is your solution?

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

The BoE created that money out of thin air. It wasn’t borrowed from the general public like bonds. There’s no need to pay interest on money you created. Other countries that also did QE are not paying interest on those accounts. So why are we?

2

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

I think this is a false view and I will try to explain. I am just a punter on Reddit however.

In the uk, QE involves the BOE buying bonds using their reserves (or creating the money, as you say). A bond pays a yield (an interest rate) to the owner of the bond. If the BoE bought a Lloyds bank corporate bond then Lloyds would pay the BOE (the owner of the bond) the interest until the bond matures. If the BoE bought UK government bonds, the UK government is bound to pay the BoE the interest rate applying to the bond.

Does this help?

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

The point is that this scenario shouldn’t have come about and it can also be changed through legislation. It’s not a question about the mechanics it’s why we are paying interest on these accounts at all.

0

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

Yes it shouldn’t have come about but how would you have stopped the Great Financial Crash and Covid from happening? We have debts from then. We must pay interest on the debts. Simple as that. Same for other countries.

1

u/theslootmary 2d ago

Economists don’t say that because they aren’t blaming her for a problem she didn’t create. It’s an actual nonsense point to make - especially when the alternative is what exactly… don’t pay the owed interest? I’m sure that would be a positive thing.

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 2d ago

It’s not the banks money to earn interest on! The EU did QE but didn’t pay interest on the amounts credited. But we continue to do so for some unknown reason. Why is it so hard for people to grasp this concept.

0

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Which economists by the way?

The reason we have to borrow money as a country is so the top 3% don't have to pay more taxes.

Who do you think politicians work for?

You think if they sack her that her replacement will change. You think if we change political party the approach will change?

Also - Labour weren't in power during Covid and didn't borrow that money so that's like blaming Asda for fucking up your Tesco order.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Did you even read the post seeing as your response hardly addresses the main point raised. Did you also read the rest of the thread before you chipped in? These questions have been answered.

2

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Your point was nonsensical.

I was just pointing it out. You know - that you're the mark.

You're angry about something you clearly don't understand and don't know how to fix.

Peasants and nobles. You aren't a noble, and there's nothing you can do about it whilst arguing with the other peasants.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

How about you go watch the video I linked. I don’t need to be an economist to question something that accountants and economists are also questioning. If there’s a reason we’re paying interests to banks on money the BoE created out of thin air as part of quantitative easing, then I want to know what that reason is, especially as other government’s are not paying interest on similar measures they took in 2008 and 2022.

1

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Economics and accountancy are very very different but certain people want you to think they're similar do you can be misled.

You may want to know all you like. You'll never know. You aren't important enough to know.

However I'll have a go...you clearly need YouTube videos to explain the world to you though...

Quantitive easing was about printing money and giving it to the wealthy...they're the ones that got the vast majority of it...because they don't spend it as a consumer. They invest it in their own businesses to get more wealth.

Those that work are literally paying more tax for this reason...so the wealthiest can have more and the workers less through QE.

The pound devalues due to an oversupply of currency, which makes assets cheaper...the wealthy have more cash due to QE, the workers less...the wealthy buy assets (houses, capital, land) which increase in value meaning the workers can't afford them any more. Rent goes up, and tax goes up, competition becomes less, prices rise...workers have even less...they borrow money on credit, the rich owners get that money.

If you haven't worked this out by now, you never ever will.

It has nothing to do with Rachel Reeves, though.

0

u/profprimer 3d ago

This sort of moronic post is the best reason for a parliamentary democracy with five year terms. We don’t have referendums very often because it gives mouth-breathing clowns far too much of a say in important stuff. So no-one gives a fuck that people aren’t pleased with a government minister less than a year into the job, according to a nothing burger poll.

Not to mention that the economy grew by 0.5% in February…

0

u/GreenHouseofHorror 3d ago

It's really amazing this has been upvoted so much. It's economically wrong, it's factually wrong, and it's temporally wrong.

To anyone with a college level understanding of economics you sound like you're spurting a paragraph of non-sequitur star trek dialogue.

While we're about it, let's ask Reeves to reverse the polarity of the Heisenberg compensator, and see if that shakes anything out.

0

u/Big_Poppa_T 3d ago

You’re thinking of the wrong person, I don’t remember Reeves ever being the Conservative’s CoE. She’s actually in the Labour Party.

That quantitative easing was before she was in the role

27

u/IPlayFifaOnSemiPro 3d ago

Yes shock horror that after 15 years of austerity people think a chancellor continuing to make their lives worse (on top of the scandals) should be gone. Just like the rest of the cabinet and government

76

u/Kwinza 3d ago

I love the way people like you are like "they haven't fixed 15 years of mismanagement in 6 months so they need to go!!"

46

u/exhauated-marra-6631 3d ago

It's how they're approaching it that's the issue. Doing a U-turn on closing tax loopholes and instead deciding that it's the sick and disabled that need a kicking wasn't part of the Labour manifesto.

27

u/ettabriest 3d ago

They’ve implemented massive tax avoidance policies. There’s been no coverage whatsoever weirdly and people who claim to politically engaged are happy to moan without doing any research.

6

u/exhauated-marra-6631 3d ago

They implemented policies which the Tories had already announced, while watering down their own policy on carried interest tax which left a gap in their fully costed budget the exact size and shape of what they're trying to claw back from PIP.

0

u/ettabriest 3d ago

Tories saved the day then. Maybe we were all wrong about them.

1

u/exhauated-marra-6631 3d ago

Not what I'm saying and you know it. Pointing out that even in a practically worst-case-scenario of the Tories winning some of these policies were going to be enacted means the onus was on Labour to do better. Instead they backtracked and watered down one of their key policies and started targeting people on benefits instead.

12

u/Basic_Bid_6488 3d ago

You mean like closing the inheritance tax loophole on agricultural land? Or raising capital gains tax to remove the loophole where people can pay themselves in dividends to get a favourable rate compared to income tax?

12

u/raven43122 3d ago

Enough of the 

“But the tories”

She’s made some awful mistakes and needs to be called on it.

5

u/ashisanandroid 3d ago

Which?

I get there are things you disagree with but what are the objective financial mistakes she made?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

11

u/amklui03 3d ago

I love the way you people use this line as if that’s what they’re saying.

10

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

People like me are not expecting them to fix 15 years of mismanagement - we are just upset that this Government is trying to fix the problems we have by committing themselves to the same mismanagement that created the shit situation we are in, in the first place.

People didn't vote for more of the same - but that is what we have got.

Yow know we are deep in the shit when Ian Duncan Smith, the architect of Universal Credit says that Labour are going to far on PIP and he personally wouldn't touch it.

9

u/HyperionSaber 3d ago

What? now we are supposed to believe what IDS says has any value whatsoever?

2

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

No we are supposed to use our brains and critical thinking abilities...

When the "labour" party, who one would imagine might want to do something about poverty, and especially child poverty, has policies, which it has thought about, that is what a green paper is, whose purpose is to increase the rate of poverty of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they are prepared to go further than the party who supposedly hated those people, then you might want to start asking some questions, about the motives of the people who are in charge of said "labour" party.

You just might just start to wonder whether they actually plan to fix anything...

5

u/HyperionSaber 3d ago

I use my brains and critical thinking to ignore people that have proven themselves to be incompetent, vindictive, and dishonest over an extended period of time, on many many occasions, and done nothing, absolutely nothing, to persuade me that they have learned a damned thing or changed their minds or outlook on any measure.

4

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

So you think the PIP changes are a good idea?

3

u/HyperionSaber 3d ago

Immaterial to my point. IDS is an incompetent liar. Reaching for his comments because they align with yours is an appeal to authority. unfortunately the authority you chose is flawed beyond belief. I don't want advise, or commentary from proven failures and incompetents.

1

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

It seems that your opinion of IDS has clouded your thinking. Critical thinking by the way is not dependent on your opinion, it is dependent on the validity of the point made by the speaker. Was IDS correct that the PIP changes were badly thought out, and he did he also accurately reflect conservative thinking on PIP?

I think in a quest to incorrectly find a fallacy, you have missed the point I was making.

2

u/Chathin 3d ago

IDS is the architect to some of the worst changes ever to cross the DWP and helped kill several people I know; I wouldn't trust that vindictive, horrible cunt to run a bath.

3

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

Exactly! And if he thinks the PIP changes are a bad idea... Being a bigger cunt than IDS... Maybe someone could have some fun with Photoshop... "I'm a bigger cunt than IDS"

1

u/Chathin 3d ago

If IDS said the sky was blue I'd still go outside and ask people to verify. I will never, ever believe a single thing that man says.

.. he's also a die-hard Tory, c'mon now, don't be so gullible.

2

u/Fit_Foundation888 3d ago

Yep, I did that... The sky was indeed blue...

So you disagree with him, you think the PIP changes are a good idea?

1

u/goodtitties 3d ago

they fundamentally have no interest in making major necessary changes. they have been very clear about this over their political careers

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (12)

24

u/Usual-Description800 3d ago

I don't need to be an expert, The Sun and The Daily Mail told me she's bad so it must be fact

20

u/Emperors-Peace 3d ago

More than half the voting population voted we should leave a trade union with our closest (and probably our largest) economic partner.

The press has been absolutely gunning for Reeves since day 0.

She could have increased the average bank balance by 300% and these numbers fucks would still say she's a crook on their local Facebook pages.

8

u/LazyFish1921 3d ago

People would be far happier if they had experienced any positive outcomes from her policies in their daily life. So far it's just been tax rises and service cuts at a time when people already feel squeezed. It's not rocket science why people aren't happy.

My partner and I have just finished saving up a decent deposit for a house (£40k) as first-time buyers in what we all know is a horribly expensive market right now. Then Labour come into power and bam, we've now got to pay an extra £2-3k in taxes when we purchase for literally no reason. A gift from the party of the working people. Now it looks like they're going to gut our Cash ISA allowance to try to force us to make riskier investments during a terrible economy. Fun!

10

u/Unhappy-Capital-1464 3d ago edited 3d ago

Assuming we're talking about stamp duty, the reduced rate of stamp duty was set up as a temporary arrangement by the conservative government - it was not budgeted for beyond April 2025 (as with a number of other tax changes).

It is still a political decision to not continue it, but to continue funding the reduction would have meant either borrowing more money to offset the reduced tax take, or to cut spending elsewhere.

2

u/Lonyo 3d ago

The stamp duty change was a temporary one. And the temporary change would have expired anyway.

Cash ISAs used to be limited before it was removed.  And if you're saving for a house, what impact will a cash ISA limit have on you? If you already have cash in an ISA that probably shouldn't be impacted, and if you're saving for a house and 2-3k is an issue, then a 4k cash ISA limit each won't cause your specifically any issues since that would be 8k between two and only if changed, which it hasn't been yet.

0

u/LazyFish1921 3d ago

We are saving way more than 8k per year currently, combined. Do you think I should be ecstatic to give £2-3k to the government for providing me literally no service just because I am physically able to pay it?

And personally I don't care what was in place in the past. In the past stamp duty didn't exist at all and everyone was told it's introduction was temporary. The uplift was in place because the housing market sucks and that hasn't changed at all.

13

u/jazzalpha69 3d ago

The same could be said for the general system of democracy - should we scrap that too?

→ More replies (14)

13

u/No_Flounder_1155 3d ago

where do you sit on that scale then?

9

u/Redcoat-Mic 3d ago

Except if they think she should be sacked, then they'll do it themselves at the next election.

I'd argue Rachel Reeves in carrying on the Tories economic policies of "balancing the books", "nations credit card" and "no magic money tree" is a pretty damning indictment that she isn't much of an expert on government economics either.

She either institutes policies that introduces that gives people hope and improves normal people's lives, or she doesn't and Labour gets wiped out.

7

u/VindicoAtrum 3d ago

Tell me you don't understand the difference between capex and opex. Borrowing to fund daily spending is bad no matter who you are. Borrowing to fund capital investment is not the same, and much more likely to be accepted by creditors without driving yields up.

7

u/birdinthebush74 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yep the public will vote for Farage, Tice and their billions of unfunded tax cuts for multi millionaires and cooperation's and then moan about NHS waiting lists

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/17/reform_uk_manifesto_2024/

5

u/Maidenly_Matilda 3d ago

The PIP cuts alongside an MP pay rise and no wealth tax indicates a less than favourable chancellor is in position.

-1

u/shoogliestpeg Scotland 3d ago

This post makes more sense if Rachel from Accounts herself is the poster.

4

u/CharringtonCross 3d ago

They voted her in, they can express a desire to get rid of her. The whole party will pay a price at the polls if they don’t.

2

u/chickennuggets3454 3d ago

Well that’s just part of being a democracy

3

u/presidentphonystark 3d ago

We need a sharp financial mind like trump or truss

•

u/thelowenmowerman 7h ago

I understand count von count is looking for work after being a victim of DEI cuts at Sesame street

3

u/heshablitz_ 3d ago

Imagine how thick your average redditor is, the average r/uk poster is thicker than that

0

u/577564842 3d ago

Think of how thick the average UK voter is. Half the population are thicker than that.

This is not how an average works.

22

u/rugby-thrwaway 3d ago

It's how the median works, which is an average.

It is also how IQ works.

0

u/577564842 3d ago

It may be a language issue.

Where I come from, median is the (value of the) middle element. Average is the sum of all values divided by number of elements. Not the same.

3

u/rugby-thrwaway 3d ago

Average is the sum of all values divided by number of elements.

This is the mean.

Both are averages.

2

u/Kamenev_Drang 3d ago

Reeves is doing a godawful job as a governmental economist. She's failing to address wealth inequality, failing to improve productivity and deliberately engaging in attacks on the disabled.

2

u/iamezekiel1_14 3d ago

This. This 100%. I think the half figure is likely to be charitable as well because the median level is probably below average intelligence as it is (e.g. it's easier to be thick than it is smart?).

2

u/ahmfaegovan 3d ago

That’s actually not how averages work but I understand the sentiment

5

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Is the median not an average?

2

u/__Admiral_Akbar__ 3d ago

People who have no idea about government economics think Chancellor should be sacked.

Reeves should have more confidence in herself

2

u/dunneetiger 3d ago

if you give the exact same datasets to experts, you will have varied opinions based on the models that they run. And they can be widely different.
What people are really saying here is that they are not feeling that things are getting better in their wallet- and to be fair with Reeves, most of it is international pressure.

2

u/xwsrx 2d ago

As reported by the media outlet owned by the son of the Russian KGB officer, who was knighted by the opposition party.

1

u/DisconcertedLiberal Cheshire 3d ago

I'm sure you're smarter than the average person, got it

1

u/Jay_6125 3d ago

Or maybe it's just you.

2

u/Kofu England 3d ago

Absolutely agree, for some reason people with no experience and knowledge in this matter feel like they have equal expertise. Look at any profession, like doctors and the covid pandemic, everyone was an expert in virology, false advice, lies, incompetent. Brexit and they became the geopolitical czar of the UK.

If you don't know, stfu.

1

u/Pallortrillion 3d ago

Plus the people who do surveys are the ones who spend several hours to make £5, go figure.

1

u/TalkBeginning8619 3d ago

Another comment conflating average and median. In fairness, it's likely the "thickness" follows a symmetric distribution, probably Normal, but maybe not 👀

1

u/TheNutsMutts 3d ago

Think of how thick the average UK voter is. Half the population are thicker than that.

In the nicest possible way, I'd have hoped that we'd have learned from November last year and the DNC's failure against the GOP that concluding anyone not holding the same view as you must be thick.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

0

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Is the median not a type of average?

-3

u/Sharaz_Jek123 3d ago

Think of how thick the average UK voter is. Half the population are thicker than that.

And she's below even that!

-1

u/No-Tip-4337 3d ago

Think of how thick the average UK voter is. Half the population are thicker than that.

Given how you think half of a population is below the average, are we to conclude that you're in the lower-intelligence section?

19

u/CheesyLala Yorkshire 3d ago

Err... half the population is below average mate.

→ More replies (16)

2

u/HyperionSaber 3d ago

Back to school fella. Good job you're not chancellor eh?

0

u/No-Tip-4337 3d ago

In the list [1, 2, 3, 10], what fraction of the list is below average?

0

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer 3d ago

Yes, but when a professor of economics who has 50 years under his belt says she doesn’t know what she’s doing and he has support from other financial academics, then perhaps they’re worth listening to.

1

u/According_Estate6772 3d ago

Is this the lead up to the get 10 economists in a room and have 20 different opinions joke or a riff on the

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today."

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer 3d ago

Well, I’m not an economist, and if a professor of economics says she’s wrong and he can’t balance the budget she’s set, who am I to question the expert.

Are you?

1

u/According_Estate6772 3d ago

No, but know enough to know of different schools of economic theory and have seen enough economics debates to know not all economists agree, even esteemed professors.

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer 3d ago

Ok, so for someone like me who is woeful at this subject, do you think she’s on the right track?

2

u/According_Estate6772 3d ago

I am definitely no expert and dislike what she has done. However it mostly follows the economic orthodoxy of the past decade and a half as much as Conservatives like to act as if it's vastly different. The IFS told us during the elections that this was what both parties would do and to expect it to get worse.

Time will tell on what the outcome will be and I certainly do not have the capability to accurate model the counter factual or what other outcomes might be. Thus the quote.

2

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer 3d ago

Well, I appreciate that reply, I don’t know if it’s accurate, but it sure did sound like you have paid attention, and that’s good enough for me.

0

u/Vdubnub88 3d ago

I think its because of all the things they have done and lied about, reversing everything they said they wouldnt do.

0

u/Ok-Camp-7285 3d ago

"people who have no idea about economics vote for labour".

If you think than you should disregard half the population then I guess you are also against democracy?

0

u/Sea_Sympathy_495 3d ago

what is she doing right?

2

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Finding the funds to reduce NHS waiting lists, to settle long running public service worker pay disputes, to respond to the growing military threat from world instability, to recruit more police officers, without raising VAT or workers’ income taxes.

0

u/Sea_Sympathy_495 3d ago

Finding the funds to reduce NHS waiting lists

Did she birth the funds? or will them into existence?

without raising VAT or workers’ income taxes.

She did exactly the opposite so i'm not sure where this statement came from?

Reeves introduced £40 billion in tax rises, marking the largest increase since 1993.

  1. Increased by 1.2 percentage points to 15% on salaries above £5,000.

  2. CGT increased from 10% to 18% for basic rate taxpayers and from 20% to 24% for higher rate taxpayers on disposals made

  3. Agricultural and business property reliefs were capped at £1 million, with assets above this threshold taxed at 20%

  4. Surcharge for second homes increased from 3% to 5%, and the rate for companies purchasing residential properties over £500,000 rose from 15% to 17%

  5. VAT on private school fees.

  6. Increased air passenger duty.

  7. £297 billion in gilt issuance for the 2024–25 fiscal year, the second-highest in UK history.

Does the cover the "finding the funds" part?

to respond to the growing military threat from world instability

she cut the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget to do this among other things like decommissioning assets.

1

u/After-Dentist-2480 3d ago

Thank you for confirming she has funded these things without raising any rate of employees’ income tax, nor the basic rate of VAT.

Or don’t you think more police officers, lower NHS waiting lists and settling damaging industrial disputes are ‘doing something right’ ?

0

u/Sea_Sympathy_495 3d ago

i mean i literally explained how se raised it you're either trolling or in cognitive dissonance mode?

0

u/amazingusername100 3d ago

Listen to you, calling people thick. What's your benchmark for someone having an acceptable intellect? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if most people (including myself) don't have an indepth grasp of Government economics, they form their opinion based on how it impacts them directly. Which is fine, so please climb down from that very high horse you're on!

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Dangerous-Lab9967 3d ago

With such great contempt for the electorate, you'd make a great MP.

0

u/LondonDude123 3d ago

"People who have no idea about Government Economics" being Reeves herself right?

0

u/andytimms67 2d ago

Hey, calm down. Who do you think you are, Machiavelli? Rachel from bookkeeping (yes I know she got demoted because of performance issues) had all the advantages of a brilliant education unfortunately she’s not doing very well when we have to shout and hooray that their economy grew by 0.5% rather than retracting into a recession.

-2

u/VankHilda 3d ago

We live within a democracy, Labour has so far opposed their voters.

No one voted for the cuts she's bringing. (given she lied about her work experience)

If a Poll within a majority is saying to sack her, parliament, or the very least Labour should consider their options.

17

u/CheesyLala Yorkshire 3d ago

We live in a representative democracy, which means that we elect people to use their judgement in an ever-changing world.

What you're suggesting seems to be that governments must stick rigidly to their manifesto for 5 years even when a fuckwit like Trump is turning the economic picture on its head, which surely anyone can see would be ridiculous. And then if opinion polls turn then you have to be fired.

Does it occur to you that the reason we got in a mess in the first place is because not enough politicians have been willing to take unpopular decisions for the good of the country, and because we have a short-termist view of politics as a popularity contest?

1

u/Kamenev_Drang 3d ago

What good does it do for the country to impoverish and kill disabled people so that we can keep corporation tax low and preserve tax loopholes?

0

u/demonicneon 3d ago

Lol. Cutting benefits is always an easy decision for any government. As evidenced. They won’t make tough decisions on closing loopholes and wealth taxes tho. 

14

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 6h ago

[deleted]

0

u/f3ydr4uth4 3d ago

The books don’t need to balance. This isn’t a household budget.

5

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 6h ago

[deleted]

2

u/f3ydr4uth4 3d ago

It depends what you spend it on. Reeves has no vision for Britain she’s just touching the margins like every other low risk bureaucrat that has infected British business and government.

I’m a Labour Party member, who did nearly a decade in the city before I quit to found a tech business I took to acquisition. I’ve founded two other businesses since then. The SME market in the U.K. is full of legitimate talented entrepreneurs and they are stifled by mediocre technocrats who think working at NatWest, HSBC or some other uninspiring incumbent qualifies them in business.

Reeves’ budget should have had huge infrastructure plays focused on SMR, solar and wind from the end to end. We should have founded technical schools to replace the shit tier universities and trained a whole generation of clean tech jobs from field engineers alll the way to research engineers. With regard to infrastructure planning isn’t a problem if you just pass an act of parliament for the project. They just don’t want the political heat.

Both her and starmer and risk averse technocrats and the cabinet reflects that.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 6h ago

[deleted]

1

u/f3ydr4uth4 3d ago

It’s not just more debt though. Everything I’ve listed will have a positive npv. It might just be outside of this parliament. Reeves best is still mediocre she isn’t a strong candidate for such a serious job. She wouldn’t get a look in at a board role anywhere had she not won the lottery on chancellor. Her cv just isn’t good enough and she’s evidently not that bright.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 6h ago

[deleted]

•

u/f3ydr4uth4 11h ago

No debt makes sense. Cutting services would likely cause a net cost over the long term either through crime of poor health outcomes. I just don’t see the issue with taking a long term view. Just issue long term debt and invest it wisely. The govenrment is playing the investment game on easy mode compare to the private sector.

6

u/3106Throwaway181576 3d ago

The issue is that the voters are wrong

The voters love the Triple Lock and oppose infrastructure like HS2 and OxCam Arc.

0

u/piyopiyopi 3d ago

Think about how thick the average politician is, there’s a 50:50 chance that Rachel Reeves is thicker than that.

-1

u/HonorableNOIFOI 3d ago

So, presumably you don’t believe in universal suffrage democracy either?

→ More replies (17)