I have been watching Rachel Reeves this morning. I have a number of thoughts.
First, without the crutch that her pre-learned lines provide to her it is clear she could not take part in an interview.
Second, she cannot think. For example, Trevor Phillips asked who ran the government, her or the Office for Budget Responsibility? She could not answer. The reason is obvious. She was never taught to think. She was taught to comply, and that is what she is doing by delivering the requirements of neoliberalism - and the OBR is a neoliberal construct intended to constrain the size of the state, which it is doing.
Third, she does not comprehend her job. She has no idea that the job of the civil service is to manage. Admin is what it does. That is not a misuse of funds. Apparently she does not understand that management has a role, and when it does not do it front line services cannot function.
Fourth, she has no explanation for where the economy is, or why. There is no coherent argument.
And, fifth, she is obviously under massive stress. It feels like burnout is already a very high risk.
In summary, I felt Trevor Phillips frustration. He faced incoherence. He said he got no answers. He did not. I can't face the idea of her talking to Laura Kuenssberg.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I think the way that public bodies need to managed could usefully be altered so that they deliver services rather that wait for applications.
I think they would then become proactive rather than reactive and this would be beneficial both for the recipients and the suppliers.
Recipients would feel the generosity of the state rather than having to beg for help .
Suppliers would feel that their work had greater purpose than it currently does.
I tend to agree
I agree, she’s like a talking head who just spouts the same old rhetoric. She’s still banging on about the financial ‘black hole’ left by the Tories for goodness sake. On the economy I’m curious about the lack of coverage of what to me looks like a ground breaking initiative by the German Government of injecting a trillion Euros into their economy, half to be spent on defence and half on infrastructure. Sonia Sodha on Trevor Phillips panel this morning mentioned it briefly but surely this is a highly significant lead which the UK could follow to stimulate the economy, particularly on green initiatives?
It could
Reeves is pretending it is not happening
Almost like a small child – closes her eyes/switches off her brain &……none of “it” is happening.
Reeves out of her depth? she’d be out of her depth in a cup of tea……..very much a reprise of Mrs May: “computer says no”.
Starmer picked a beaut with this one as finance minister.
You are right, Mike; he did pick a beaut for such an important. A question that often reurs to me is this: WHY? Surely, he must have been aware of her incompetence to some extent. But appointed her anyway? What does that say about him?
Who else do they have?
Philip Maughan-
This is how Reeves’s handlers are spinning it: (from a very neo liberal piece by Kitty Donaldson in i-news) and
“I think a really key thing is that loads of MPs bring up Germany and what they are doing. But Germany’s borrowing is 63 per cent of GDP, and even that has caused some market jitters. If anything, it proves how important what we are doing is, because let’s be clear, additional borrowing at the moment is a recipe for higher mortgage repayments.
“Turning the economy around is not an overnight fix, it takes time and discipline. We are absolutely serious about creating a more productive economy. There’s not a lot we can do about global trade tariffs, but we are going to make Britain’s economy as strong and efficient as possible,” a No 10 source told The i Paper.”.
Absolute nonsense of course, but revealing of the Treasury/McSweeney obduracy. Electoral suicide.
UK debt is still liklely to be under 70% of GDP – once QE is taken into account – and central bank reserve accounts are not debt in this sense
Reeves and Starmer are doing exactly what they have been told, which is the neoliberal agenda.
The well-off will continue to benefit. They know of no alternative. Those that do, were dispatched some time ago.
I find Rachel reeves scary because she appears totally inept, tickets, clothes, winter fuel PIP benefits……but no general inheritance tax hikes??
All the wrong decisions, and in the wrong order too
Rachel Reeves is not the only one Richard
Try this from the Observer’s Will Hutton
“To stem the possibility of a financial market attack, whoever runs the British government would be compelled to forecast that day-to-day public spending is more than matched by day-to-day tax receipts within a five-year foreseeable future. This is not some performative fiscal rule that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has willingly imposed on herself to prove her iron credentials; it is an indispensable, minimal guarantor of our creditworthiness and sovereign autonomy”
Still the same old same old
Total, crass stupidity from him.
“the British government would be compelled to forecast that day-to-day public spending is more than matched by day-to-day tax receipts within a five-year foreseeable future”
thanks for that.
Let’s try this: UK gov’ invests in e.g. 1GW wind farm. It funds the totality and uses e.g. Orsted for the EPC (engineering procurement and construction) – quite doable.
The RETURN on the INVESTMENT is over a period of 10 – 15 years all depends on the interest rate on the debt financing and the desired IRR, coupled to what they could sell the elec for. Obvs there would be some tax receipts on the capital plant (not much made in UK – but some). But the main RETURN would be over the period of the project.
How are tax reciepts over 5 years relevant to this? Hutton is like the Bourbons: forgotten nothing, learnt nothing. A pathetic old never-was (I chucked out “The State We’re In” years ago – totally past its sell-by date). Perhaps the Observer pubishes his mumblings as an act of charity? Key point: Hutton has lost sight (if it was ever in sight) of the FACT that gov’s can make investments that have an easily & clearly quantifiable RETURNS…….which would benefit the state and by extension its citizens. Denmark recognises that, which is why they own Orsted (50.9%). Various UK govs have been too thick/too doctrinaire to do the same.
His comment is in technical terms, economically illiterate.
Very sad that people keep repeating that rubbish. It reinforces the idea that we have to make cuts. Paul Johnson does the same.
Possibly the shortest comment I have ever submitted on this website, but well worth repeating in response to this, as well as an earlier post. In my opinion, a single word accurately describes the attitude of Rachel Reeves towards the disabled and most seriously disadvantaged people in this country: Snear! Sn (Tin) Ear…
Can I assume that Captain Flint has been reprogrammed and can say more than ‘pieces of eight’? or has the sliver been auctioned off too?
Does any one of these Avatar’s for the rich need to be ‘in their depth’ Richard?
Better that they look clueless when asked because all it does is make politics look really bad, and will help to manufacture consent for what is to come next. It’s by design as far as I am concerned.
You know, I once described contemporary politics as theatre – a performance – but it is even worse than that – politics, and therefore our democracy is just an illusion. There are no battles now. It’s all sorted.
So, lets try to enjoy the absurdity of it perhaps?
R4’s The Naked Week was well worth a listen this week. Never has a truer word been spoken than in jest. Listen to last Friday’s programme to hear how Tom Watson (no less than Baron Watson now in the HoL – or should it be ‘barren Watson’ because he has no scruples) is making his living these days.
It was amazing hearing an expose’ of the APPC (the Association of Professional Political Consultants) on a comedy programme (not Today, as they were too interested in Heathrow) and how their code of conduct was being flouted by the throbbing members of the Lords (tumescent in the anticipation of making loads of cash of course).
To hear the APPC code of conduct being described as a ‘conned of conduct’ was priceless but also deadly accurate.
Check it out if all of this is getting a bit too much.
Because it is. Shit is everywhere, in the water, in politics, in ethics, in morality.
One of your better ones old chap.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
I was at a former manager’s retirement reception last Thursday and chatted to a senior Bank of England official, academic from London Business School and a consultant from Deloitte / ex bankster. All report a sense of panic and outreach by ministers and Whitehall officials for something, anything that could get the economy.
This community and, in recent days, Prem Sikka have provided ideas, but the government thinks more of the same will suffice. It’s asked if what we call neoliberalism has been insufficiently or incompetently applied. Are there any levers that have not been pulled or in the right direction or at the right time (Reynolds)? It’s simplistic.
There’s also a feeling that Starmer sees salvation abroad, perhaps a Falklands moment. Like Johnson, he asks what Ukraine can do for him.
It feels like the end of an era in the City. Those in their 60s are drifting into retirement. Those in their 50s increasingly want out, if not early retirement. There’s no sense of optimism. Any form of rapprochement with Europe is not on the agenda.
It was interesting to hear some veterans talk about going overseas, something I heard last Christmas. None has overseas connections.
Thanks
I’m curious -Prem Sikka and others have ideas.
Can we share?
Most of what Prem does is here https://leftfootforward.org/author/prem-sikka/
“something, anything that could get the economy”……going.
I was in communication with the Scots this week. Going to do a toolkit for communities on energy.
Following my look @ Port talbot, it is clear that most medium-sized communties could have their elec bills cut in half via community energy. But then there are a whole series of bolt ons to this both on the community side and on the public systems side.
Medium-sized community energy systems produce loads of oxygen – some could be supplied to hospitals (+/- medical grade) but lots could also be used to turbo-charge sewage treatment plants easily (bubblers are not hard engineering). This won’t happen due to the silo problem – coupled to a lack of “oh stuff it – let’s do it” attitude. I’d be happy to speak to those desparate to “get the economy going” – but I suspect what I say will need to be translated.
Most of what I propose is straightforward enough – using well understood kit. The stumbling blocks tend to be, mostly regulatory. In the case of community energy – use of system charges to maintain networks that tend not to go wrong (the recent event was an exception). In the case of the water rabble – they would try to game things (ref O2). In the case of transport, & heavy duty vehciles we are proposing conversion of diesels to burn H2 – sub-optimal but the Brits have the tech to do that – right now. The problem is doctrinal in the sense that all sorts of orgs take the view “electric-vehciles-r-us” which is quite funny in some ways, and sad in others.
Get the economy going? Community food? Mobiots “Regenesis” Chapter 4. Add in community energy and you have a very very interesting system which will make citizens much better off. Problem with all this – it would disintermediate many of the orgs/companies that support LINO/Tories/ etc – but it would get the economy “going” just in a different way.
& for the avoidance of “oh dear another nutter” – much of the above is output from “the collective”, two engineers, a wierd Irishman and an ex-Harvard/brightest economist in the European Commission.
It is all possible
Except it does not pay a return to those who demand one
Not just Reeves out of her depth, Starmer too. I might as well have voted Tory at the last election. It’s Cameron/Osborne revisited. Labour will never get my vote again as long as these two are at the helm of the ship of fools.
But it’s not Cameron/Osborne revisited. It’s far worse. Those two were liberal Tories doing things which you’d expect liberal Tories to do. There was proper functioning opposition with Milliband at the time. Give me a choice of Cameron/Osborne and Starmer/Reeves and I’d go for Cameron/Osborne straight away now. This feels like a total end of the road. Opposition to Starmer within Labour’s weak, practically non-existent (PLP’s last cohort’s full of useless starmerites), Tory liberals don’t exist anymore, LibDems are a regional party really. Reform do feel like the only England-wide opposition at the moment – and that is extremely scary. There’s no way we’ll get rid of FPTP. Reform can win with not much more than 20 per cent UK-wide – which is just ridiculous. I do hope SNP finally get themselves together and present a viable plan for the next Holyrood GE. At least Scotland can escape this madness.
It seems the Germans are doing what the B of E did in the financial and COVID crises, ignoring political fiscal rules (and mythical ‘borrowing’) and simply creating sufficient funds to cover the necessary defence spending without cutting spending elsewhere ‘to pay for it’. We should do the same but Reeves and Starmer seem paralysed, like rabbits in headlights.
Agreed
Yes she did come over as being wooden and stressed. She’s in a position of responsibility with millions of livelihoods dependent upon her and she keeps getting it wrong and no clue as to why. She’s clearly out of her depth. I give her until early Autumn
Why do we need growth? Is it because there is an implicit assumption that we can’t redistribute any of the existing income and assets. The current dispensation is what it is. The rich are rich and the poor are poor. The only slice of national income or assets we can deploy to do any good is those arising in future. And there is nothing that can be done to address the inequality that has been growing for the best part of five decades.
Is that really what a Labour government believes? That punishment by cuts and austerity has to continue until morale and productivity improve?
Correct.
Government must not, or cannot, change anything.
Any comment from Richard on the Bank of England repo funding to UK pension funds which is being talked about on Twitter?
Without knowing what is being said, no.
Here we go
https://x.com/btcjvs/status/1903211725425369494
I have to confess I do not take anything he says seriously.
‘Is that really what a Labour government believes? That punishment by cuts and austerity has to continue until morale and productivity improve?’
Well said Andrew. That old cynical adage fits the behaviour and outcomes of the economically illiterate governments since 2010 perfectly.
In which ways can the increasingly impoverished poor contribute to/ create inflation?
They can’t
They don’t
Thank you for your clear answer to my question about poverty and inflation.
Might that mean, at leat in theory, that taxation could be an appropriate approach to managing inflation?
Yes
This new report from Compass is a pretty trenchant criticism of the government’s economic policy with fairly detailed alternative proposals.
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/paying-for-a-decade-of-national-renewal/
These two paragraphs seem to me to be an accurate summary of the state of the nation in 2025:
“Britain has built an extreme version of the paradox of wealth. Despite the surge in asset values, its capacity to meet essential needs – from children’s services and young adult training to social and health care – has faltered, with resources steered instead to low social value, and increasingly high emission, activity. Hence the rising social crises facing many affluent countries, and the juxtaposition of enfeebled public services, growing levels of impoverishment, and high levels of super- luxury consumption.
“The plutocracy’s growing control of resources – often acting as a drag on economic and social progress, and often at odds with the needs and preferences of society – is the inevitable consequence of a toxic mix of over-marketisation and excessive inequality. Britain is one of the highest users of private jets, contributing a fifth of related emissions across Europe. Scarce land and building resources have been used to construct walls of multi-million pound luxury flats and mansions, mostly bought for speculative purposes and left empty for much of the year, by the mobile super-rich. Such misallocation lies at the heart of today’s decline in home ownership, a lack of social housing, and unaffordable private rents.”
But Labour clearly think that the solution is more of the same. 14+ years of pursuing this agenda has reduced our country to a shameful condition. When will the penny drop?
Thanks
Having agreed that Reeves seems out of her depth, on reflection I wonder if we underestimate the strength of the influences on her – and Starmer. Maybe the truth is that ever since Thatcher naively gave the financial establishment a free rein, it has grown in power, boosted by the austerity years of Osborne and chums so that it has become a monster calling the shots (a concept approved by Trump) with Reeves and Starmer merely puppets. The fate of Truss certainly suggests that.