Rachel Reeves told The Mirror today that:
“I know how hard people work for their money and they see more and more of it go in taxes and more and more of it go on mortgages, rent, food shops and energy bills. They've got less every month for the things that they enjoy in life. And I do want working people who work incredibly hard to have more of their own money in their pockets.”
The article continued with a reference to her mother checking her bank statements to balance the family's books: for all her supposed economics education Reeves chooses to promote the household analogy as her metaphor for macroeconomic management when history has, time and again, proved it to be totally wrong.
There is also so much else wrong with Reeves' stated concern. For example, why is she focussing on expenditure and not income? Could it be that she does not believe in fair pay increases for those who deserve them in an inflationary era?
And why too has she nothing to say on cutting mortgages, which she could demand? She could as Chancellor over-rule the Bank of England.
She could then have talked about the impact of cuts in interest rates on rents.
And even on business costs so that the cost of food might fall.
She could also have addressed that last issue by talking about Brexit.
And she could have talked about changing the rules on energy pricing.
Completely missing, also, is any awareness that what people might want are decent public services.
But she did not hint at any of that. She instead portrayed herself as a victim of circumstance like the householder - excepting the hint that must be implicit in what she said that she would like to reduce tax. It is as if she wants power and thinks that there is nothing she can do with it.
Given the chance she had to say so much more than she did I have to presume that she thinks this is the case.
It is not a compelling case for voting Labour.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Has she ever been properly challenged on this in a media interview?
No, in my opinion
Mr Nattriss
the answer to your question is contained in this blog.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/10/07/how-will-labour-pay-for-300000-now-social-houses-a-year-it-needs-to-say/
Richard was “de-platformed” because he offers a wholly different narrative to the mainstream nonsense on offer. Reeves will NEVER be interviewed in a robust fashion becuase to do so would be to enter “emperor’s new clothes” territory. The current politico-meeja set-up is designed and maintained to prevent this. Witness the flows of money into vile-liebore from those who would have much to lose under a different tax/economic systems. Can’t have that, so must at all costs stop any & all robust questioning of the vile-liebore crew. An empty bucket looks less vacant than Reeves, the living personification of a two-legged imbecile.
Mike Parr,
I approve of so much of what you have to say, but I hate the juvenile soubriquets you persist in using. They are one-smile euphemisms and tediously ‘vile’ thereafter. I truly believe they weaken and demean the force of your intellect and wisdom.
I mean this kindly. I am no match for you in knowledge or technical expertise and I think you undermine your true worth with a glib flippancy. You are better than this I’m sure.
Quite sure. Please stop squandering the respect you deserve.
Mr Crow, thanks for the kind comments & valid critique.
What’s in a name?
What would you call a party & its leader that supports children going to school hungry? (the two child benefit limit)
What would you call a party where a former shadow chancellor seemed to agree on Gidiot’s (Gideon the idiot) austerity (+/- 140,000 excess dead).
What would you call a party and its shadow chancellor that adopts wholesale monetary/fiscal polices that have demonstrably failed (thus fulfilling Einstein’s definition of insanity).
The party of Wilson and Callaghan did some good & also foolish things, but taken in the round they did their best in the interests of the country.
Their successors are a crew of power-mad misfits, chancers, liars, thieves, hypocrites, & only in politics for what it can do for them. (and yes there are a small handful of exceptions). Evidence? The on going “labour” party conference & its accretion disk of corporate sponsors.
I am open to suggestions for a name for the successor party to “Labour”.
In the case of “labour’s” current leader – & given his support for the two child benefit limit – “Sir Kid Starver” seems to fit perfectly. Keep in mind he KNOWS the impact of the policy (more hungry children), & still supports it.
Labour as the party of Atlee, Wilson, Callaghan is dead (it died under war-monger Blair). What do we call the new party? Names have power and the current mob are trading on the political power that the word “Labour” carries. It should be evident from the above that they don’t deserve to, any more than the current crop of nut jobs in the “tory party” deserve to use the word tory or conservative as applied to Macmillan’s bunch. Names matter. I have no intention, ever, of calling the current crop of politicos “labour” or “tory”, for the reasons given.
Your starter for 10
RichPeople’s Party 1 (tory), Richpeople’s Party 2 (labour) – RPP1, RPP2. Snappy & reflecting the reality: no difference in policy, attitude (we want more hungry kids) and approach.
I watched Reeves’s speech last night and all I could see was fear – whether it was fear of speaking or fear of being found out I have no idea but she and looked really uncomfortable indeed and not very confident. The next Chancellor? Oh dear.
Reeves clung to the lectern as if her life depended on it and I think that the blood rushed to her head as well and she carried away on rhetoric.
I wanted detail; I wanted mechanics.
I got nothing.
It’s nothing to do with her being a woman, it’s nothing to do with her being right wing, it’s just that she is not very good – Carney’s intervention is just Carney being in response to Kwarteng and Hunt – wouldn’t ANYTHING be better that what we’ve got?So I can take his support with more that a pinch of salt.
Reeves is a creature of her political advisors – a hollow woman who can be filled with whatever Labour’s funders want.
Oh well. The interregnum persists.
“I wanted detail; I wanted mechanics.”
You optimist
She could be Margaret Thatcher speaking.
Has she learnt nothing from the history since 1979?
Nearly 45 years of failed and selfish Thatcherite Monetary Illiteracy and so many people wanting to vote for a continuation of it with the Starmer led Labour Party. Is this country in a real mess? Yes it is!
Listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme on economic education some years ago, I heard John McDonnell say that his mum was the best economist he had encountered. Perhaps Rachel Reeves heard the very same programme.
Both are sadly misled, but I suspect John McDonnell would be offering a bit more hope than Rachel Reeves does.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/08/covid-corruption-commissioner-recoup-lost-billions-labour
Grand ideas here from Reeves but if she’s not going to create money to properly fund this venture how successful can it be? And where she glibly talks of taking people to court, how does she plan on doing that without years of waiting if she isn’t going to create money to start properly funding the judicial system? Her grand ideas collapse when they’re subject to a little critical thought (which the press conspicuously fails to do).
Excellent questions
None of this works if the rule of law has failed at the sharp end in the courts
Also in the Mirror in what’s surely a manipulative appeal to nostalgia Reeves gushingly promises “a thriving local high street”. The High Street was surely a product of its era and that era has gone, the internet alone has seen to that but when one factors in too the consequences of implementing the Brexit import controls… well, the shops, those few which remain, will have very little to sell & what there is will be so expensive it’ll make an absurdity of her claims shoppers will have “more money in your pocket”. Again, a moment’s critical thought makes alarming nonsense of her claims. What on earth are we in for? More looting I imagine 🙁
High Streets will only thrive when shops can be converted for other uses
One of the items in Labour’s very lengthy policy document is to speed up the justice system. (Pause for hollow laugh!) Like almost the whole of the document, it reads as no more than a wish list.
If speeding-up the justice system were a meaningful manifesto pledge (excuse the oxymoron) that alone would justify a vote for Labour.
In practice we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system: devised by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.
Remind me…..what was Kier Starmer’s profession before he entered the arena of politics…… ?
The House of Commons will never take on the legal profession; there are too many vested interests at stake. Not least the politicians who cannot conduct a coherent or cogent argument and would be run rings round by those who run-rings-round for a living.
It looks like Jo Maugham and the Good Law Project will be holding her to her promise.
https://goodlawproject.org/recovering-the-billions-lost-on-wasted-ppe-needs-political-will/
“It is not a compelling case for voting Labour.” NO – it certainly is not… even (especially?) for Party Members.
Equally, it is unlikely to get “natural Tories” out of their seats and off to the voting booth to vote against Labour…. and that is the aim.
Stating fundamental truths about the money works (and the consequences for tax); overruling the “independent” BoE on rates WILL frighten the horses… so must not be said.
Frustrating? Yes – particularly for you and your readers who believe in ideas, A good tactic to win? To a point, yes…. but please, Labour, give something worthwhile to vote for.
I can live without the plumbing if the ideas are good enough
BUT there are so few ideas
Hang on a minute Rachel Reeves:-
So you’re saying that the economy must be doing well for us to afford to make services and our lives better – which says that you believe in tax and spend.
And then, you’re hinting at cutting the very same taxes you say pays for everything and will improve things which means er……that there will be less money in-fact to pay for improvements?!!
What there is here is a compelling case of duplicity. In fact I’ll say it – The Shadow Chancellor is a liar and a fraud. To mix up micro with marco is also unforgivable for someone even in a shadow post.
We’re being had by the same people who say they can do better than the Tories.
Which means that Labour will be allowed to win the next election to give the Tories a rest. They’ll be another crash of some sort, Labour will be voted out and then the Tories can come back and finish rolling back 1946 job circa 2035-2040 having held the fort.
PSR you might find it helpful to read Dan Neidles twitter link on this where he spoke at a Labour Party fringe meeting yesterday. He has his presentation outlined on a thread. I find him considered and well thought out.
I could not find that on his Twitter
https://lowdownnhs.info/news/deficit-ridden-icbs-face-costly-top-down-intervention/
I’d love to know how she is going to sort out the latest NHS mess/ reorganisation without government money.
@jenw,
How to sort the NHS ‘mess’ without government money ? Easy peasy. She’ll sell it off. Or keep giving it away.
She clearly believes, as so many other politicians and voters do, that the NHS is an overhead; an oncost. NO benefit. Neither financial, fiscal nor practical/humane; just money paid out (by hard-working family taxpayers) and going down the drain. The woman (person who happens to be in this case female) is an idiot. If she can offload any more bits of the NHS she’ll think it’s helping to ‘balance the books’.
But the Tories believe the same idiocy. Who ya gonna vote for? Despite the appalling weather and the seven month winter I’m glad I moved to Scotland. At least I have an alternative to vote for and a PR voting system at least for the time being…(I take nothing for granted.). News media organisations have a field day slagging-off the NHS in Scotland, but from what I hear it’s nowhere near as decrepit as it is in England. How Scotgov can achieve that on a restrictive ‘local authority’ budget is beyond me. But they manage it somehow.
You can see why Richard Burgon is not on the front bench.
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/10/09/richard-burgon-its-time-to-bury-the-tory-policies-that-created-this-crisis/
“She could as Chancellor over-rule the Bank of England”.
True of course. But the political consequence of saying that is her intention would be extremely unhelpful. Even Johnson wasn’t so stupid as to announce in advance that it was his intention to attempt to over-rule the Courts and the Civil Service.
Seems to be universal phenomenon just now – people sort of know the truth, but only actually hear what they want to hear – ie as with ‘covid is over no need for clean air’ etc.
They sort of know she’s not making sense but they will only possibly think about that once Labour wins.
She did almost begin to suggest ‘pension funds’ and investment in green infrastructure, battery factories etc could sort of self- generate funds . Almost aligning with Keynes ‘ ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’ – but never really said it.
And definitely she has never been really challenged on BBC etc
Reeves and Labour are a perfect illustration of Lakoff’s ideas of ‘framing’. In their language (taxpayers money, hardworking people) and the metaphors they use (household budgets) they perfectly echo the Tory party and their orthodox neoliberal economics. And by doing that they just reinforce it.
What we sadly lack is an alternative narrative, language and underlying policies with a body of people to develop and promote them. It would be closer to Scandinavian social democracy and mixed economy, than the state centric, Eastern European-style socialism, which Corbyn and MacDonnell espoused. The building blocks are there in the Green New Deal, MMT and the work of people like Richard and Steve Keen. However none of our (opposition) political parties are yet really prepared to take on board that thinking. Even if many of their memberships are getting there.
Agreed
We’re doomed –
Mark Carney says “Rachel Reeves is a serious economist. It’s time to put her ideas into practice”
Sh*t
In view of the remarkable similarities between the socio-economic policies of the Conservative and Labour parties, plus the somewhat supine approaches of the Lib-Dems, might a reality be that we are influenced/controlled by some form of”deep state” political cartel of which the main stream media communicators/propagandists are also members?
I don’t really think it’s entirely conspiratorial I think there’s a widespread lack of ability to do joined up thinking by many people and they won’t do this until things get really bad in the country.
Or straight forward fear. In Labour of being crucified by the media. In LibDems after disastrous elections, getting too close to the Tories then going the other way under Swinson with wild promises about over turning Brexit. Both parties relying on the Tories self- destructing. Which they are making a good job of. So say as little as possible and leave them to it. The Sun Tzu principle.
Cock-up usually beats conspiracy.
Over 80 years ago a Fed Chair argued against the household fallacy and for full employment economy
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1940/05/10/94821140.pdf
The last two paragraphs show a clear vision of how the economic machine works
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1939/01/24/94668731.pdf
I can link to both speeches if anyone wants a deeper dive!
I caught her yesterday referring to government using ‘tax payer’s money’! She seems to have swallowed whole the right-wing media mickey-mouse imagining of economics.
Quite apart from the fact that it’s not actually true, this plays directly to the cuts agenda – and behind that the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor – ‘strivers and scivers’ – if you pay tax then you must have earned your money and deserve what you have, if you’re a single Mum on benefits the money you’re given really belongs to somebody else.
It’s a lie, but not just a lie – it’s a pernicious, socially divisive lie.
So why on earth is she telling it?
Power
Reeves has long made it plain she’s irrationally homicidal towards benefit claimants https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-stephenson/rachel-reeves_b_8135244.html
Richard, when will your ideas be realised. It’s all very well persisting in macroeconomic illiteracy in government, when what we need is a champion to challenge the need for real understanding, to stand up and be counted. You have many disciples who will follow you and if not you who will you choose to lead us?
I’m 75, too old and decrepit for such a challenge, but I long for someone, hopefully in my lifetime, to rise up. Is it too much to hope for?
We can only hope
I can only try
Labour is promoting the tories.
At the conference Jess Phillips was hosted by Belgian and Swiss private healthcare companies.
IDS was allowed to have a stand and give a speech, from his Centre for Social Justice group.
Justine Greening chaired a meeting on how the government can provide technical education for the future.
Yet the member of the Socialist Health Association who talked about getting rid of privatisation in the NHS was removed by security.
Staggering…
Surprise, surprise, the members are also going to be asked to support a Corbyn clause.
The “Corbyn clause”, if approved, would mean party membership being stripped from anyone who gives “financial support or assistance” to a candidate who declares an intention to stand in opposition to Labour.
So they can have tories in the party, but not real socialists.
It is absurd
Jamie Driscoll has had over 6000 donations. I imagine quite a few of those will be from party members.
Corbyn has had 27,400+ donations.
I’d love to see how they can find party members among that lot.
Emma Dent Coad has over 1000 donations, mainly anonymous.
Can they really ask gofundme to give them donors names?
I am certain they cannot