On the plus side, she has broken the glass ceiling for being the first person arrested in London for the theft of a mobile phone.
What is notable is the fact that she claims she told Starmer in 2020 about this, when she was apponted Shadow NI Secretary. As such:
1 Why was this not an issue then, but is an issue now?
2 Why did Starmer throw her under the bus?
3 When will Reeves be sacked for lying about her CV and for various other matters relating to her honesty?
Rachel Reeves' recent budget has sent shockwaves through the airline industry, with massive increases in business rates threatening to cripple an already struggling sector. The budget, which includes a fivefold increase in business rates for airports, has been widely condemned by industry leaders who warn that it will lead to route cancellations, higher costs for passengers, and a significant reduction in investment.
The airline industry, still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, is now facing an existential threat due to these punitive tax hikes. Airports, which are already some of the largest rate payers in the country, will see their average rates bills increase by more than 450%. This astronomical rise in costs is equivalent to doubling the corporation tax levied on the sector, at a time when stability and confidence are desperately needed.
The immediate consequence of these rate increases will be the cancellation of routes to and from the UK. Airports will be forced to scale back their operations, leading to fewer flight options for passengers and higher ticket prices. This not only affects the convenience and affordability of air travel but also has broader implications for the UK's connectivity and trade. The loss of routes will hurt tourism, business travel, and international trade, further damaging the economy.
The budget's impact on investment cannot be overstated. With soaring rates bills, airports will have to cut back on essential investments in infrastructure and services. This will hinder the sector's ability to modernize and expand, putting the UK's status as a global aviation hub at risk. The government's ambition to secure the highest growth rate in the G7 and unlock an investment-led approach to transforming the economy will be materially damaged without the airline industry as a major partner.
Rachel Reeves' budget is a catastrophic blow to the airline industry. The massive increases in business rates are not only punitive but also short-sighted, threatening the viability of airports and the broader aviation sector. The consequences will be felt by passengers, businesses, and the economy as a whole. It is imperative that the government reconsiders these measures to avoid further damage to one of the UK's most vital industries.
Starmer and Ed had better watch out, ifthe airlines shut down routes, they won't be able to fly off on their Net Zero global junkets!
Doesn’t dream, doesn’t have a favourite Christmas film, doesn’t have a favourite book, doesn’t have a favourite poem and his signature dish is a ham pasta bake.
— Jordan Tyldesley (@PippyBing) November 25, 2024
💯 NPC. https://t.co/bAn7SRlWpd
Old Keir Starmer had a farm, E-I-E-I-O, And on that farm, he raised some tax, E-I-E-I-O. With a tax hike here and a tax hike there, Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax tax, Old Keir Starmer had a farm, E-I-E-I-O.
Old Keir Starmer's IHT, E-I-E-I-O, Made the farmers groan and weep, E-I-E-I-O. With a burden here and a burden there, Here a burden, there a burden, everywhere a burden scare, Old Keir Starmer's IHT, E-I-E-I-O.
BlackRock's buying up the land, E-I-E-I-O, Turning fields to concrete plans, E-I-E-I-O. With a buyout here and a buyout there, Here a buy, there a buy, everywhere a buy buy, BlackRock's buying up the land, E-I-E-I-O.
Farmers losing all their ground, E-I-E-I-O, Thanks to policies unsound, E-I-E-I-O. With a loss here and a loss there, Here a loss, there a loss, everywhere a loss loss, Farmers losing all their ground, E-I-E-I-O.
Old Keir Starmer had a farm, E-I-E-I-O, But now it's just a memory, E-I-E-I-O. With a policy here and a policy there, Here a policy, there a policy, everywhere a policy scare, Old Keir Starmer had a farm, E-I-E-I-O.
.jpg)
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has passed away at the age of 86. Prescott, who served as Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair from 1997 to 2007, was a prominent figure in British politics for over four decades.
Born in Prestatyn, North Wales, Prescott began his career as a merchant seaman before transitioning into politics through the trade union movement. He was known for his working-class roots and his dedication to social justice and environmental causes. Prescott represented the constituency of Kingston upon Hull East in Parliament for 40 years, making a lasting impact on his community and beyond.
Prescott's tenure as Deputy Prime Minister was marked by his efforts to improve the lives of working families and his work on the landmark Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement. He was also known for his pugnacious style, famously punching a protester who threw an egg at him during the 2001 general election.
In recent years, Prescott battled Alzheimer's disease and passed away peacefully in a care home surrounded by his family. His legacy includes his contributions to social housing, coalfield regeneration, and climate action. Prescott will be remembered as a true giant of the Labour movement and a dedicated public servant who always fought for the underdog.
He is survived by his wife Pauline and his sons Jonathan and David. The Labour Party and the nation mourn the loss of this remarkable man, whose impact on British politics and society will be felt for generations to come.
Rachel Reeves' recent budget has been nothing short of a catastrophe for the UK economy. The latest GDP figures, which show a meagre growth of just 0.1% in the third quarter (with a fall of 0.1% in September), are a stark reminder of the disastrous impact of her fiscal policies. Despite her promises of economic stability and growth, the reality is that Reeves' budget has done more harm than good.
Reeves' budget was supposed to be a turning point for the UK economy, but it has turned out to be a colossal failure. Her plans to raise taxes by £40 billion and increase national insurance contributions for employers have stifled economic growth and burdened businesses. The promised benefits of these measures have yet to materialise, leaving the economy in a worse state than before.
The uncertainty surrounding Reeves' budget has had a chilling effect on business confidence. Companies have been hesitant to invest and expand, fearing the impact of higher taxes and increased regulation. This lack of confidence has been reflected in the dismal GDP figures, with the economy growing at a snail's pace. The government's failure to provide a clear and stable economic plan has left businesses in limbo, unable to plan for the future.
Reeves' budget has also hit households hard. The increase in national insurance contributions and other taxes has left families with less disposable income, exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis. The promised relief measures, such as the increase in the minimum wage, have been insufficient to offset the financial strain on households. As a result, consumer spending has stagnated, further dragging down economic growth.
The latest GDP figures paint a grim picture of the UK's economic future. With growth stalling and inflationary pressures mounting, the outlook is bleak. Reeves' budget has failed to address the underlying issues facing the economy, such as productivity stagnation and declining investment. Instead, it has created new problems, such as higher borrowing costs and increased national debt.
Rachel Reeves' budget has been a disaster for the UK economy. Her misguided policies have stifled growth, crushed business confidence, and left households struggling to make ends meet. The latest GDP figures are a testament to the failure of her economic plan. It is clear that the UK needs a new approach to economic policy, one that prioritizes growth and stability over short-term political gains.
It is hardly surprising she has fucked up, given that she was nothingmore than a complaints department manager at a retail bank and a very short term junior economist at the Bank fo England (facts that she lied about on her CV).
Rachel Reeves' plot to overhaul the UK's pension system has been met with fierce criticism from analysts who warn that the proposal is a "grave mistake." The Chancellor's plan, which aims to consolidate local government pension schemes into so-called "megafunds," is being touted as the biggest pension reform in decades. However, the potential consequences of this move could be disastrous for the UK's financial stability and the future of its pensioners.
One of the primary concerns raised by analysts is the increased risk associated with the proposed megafunds. By consolidating smaller pension schemes into larger ones, the government hopes to unlock billions of pounds for investment in infrastructure and high-growth companies. However, this strategy also exposes pension funds to higher levels of risk. Investing in private equity and other high-risk assets could lead to significant losses, jeopardizing the retirement savings of millions of UK workers.
The proposed reforms could also lead to higher costs for pensioners. The consolidation of pension schemes is expected to reduce administrative costs, but these savings may not be passed on to pensioners. Instead, the focus on high-risk investments could result in higher management fees and other expenses, ultimately reducing the amount of money available for retirees. This could leave pensioners with less financial security in their later years, undermining the very purpose of the pension system.
Another major concern is the loss of local control over pension funds. Under the current system, local government pension schemes are managed by local authorities, allowing for tailored investment strategies that meet the specific needs of their communities. The proposed megafunds would centralize control, potentially leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that may not be suitable for all regions. This could result in poorer investment decisions and reduced returns for pensioners.
The potential economic impact of the proposed reforms cannot be ignored. By focusing on high-risk investments, the government is gambling with the future of the UK's pension system. If these investments fail to deliver the expected returns, it could lead to a significant shortfall in pension funds, putting additional strain on the public purse. This could result in higher taxes or reduced public services, further exacerbating the financial challenges faced by the UK.
Rachel Reeves' plan to overhaul the UK's pension system is a risky and potentially disastrous move. The increased risk, higher costs for pensioners, loss of local control, and potential economic impact all point to a grave mistake. As the government pushes forward with these reforms, it is crucial to consider the long-term consequences and ensure that the future of the UK's pensioners is not put in jeopardy.
In a hissy dipslay of outrage and liberal tears about the elcetion result in the USA, the Guardian (favoured by the quinoa eating classes) has announced ON TWITTER that it is no longer going to post on Twitter.
Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X https://t.co/j4fRgzSYde
— The Guardian (@guardian) November 13, 2024
Digging itself further down into its own hypocritical hole, the Guardian goes on to say:
"The nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages.
Reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for news-gathering purposes."
These people are so far up their own arses that they cannot even see the hypocrisy of any of that.
As I have said before, and happily say again, I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe my armpits with, let alone use it as a news source!
Just a former Labour advisor here brazenly saying he’d send riot police in to deal with a farmer’s protest and then shut down Britain’s farming industry because we ‘don’t need them’. I didn’t press him on it too much because I wanted to let it sit there like the stale fart it is. https://t.co/dgUZWXQeRv
— Patrick Christys (@PatrickChristys) November 12, 2024
Labour has publiciy declared war on farmers.
For why?
Labour wants to destroy the farms and flog them off to property companies such as Blackrock et al, so that they can build solar farms on some and build houses for illegal migrants on others.
It is not only an assault on the countryside and agirculture, it is an assault on the fabirc of Britain itself!
Dominic Cummings has issued a call to arms:
Spread the word among farmers: Blair's lead adviser says CLOSE DOWN ALL SMALL FARMERS because they're a political enemy.
RETWEET so farmers hear the Labour plan The NFU is telling farmers NOT to come to London to demonstrate.
TERRIBLE ADVICE. I've been in the PM office when demonstrations happen.
a/ Westminster is weak as piss and
b/ the MET leadership always fold if numbers are over a threshold - 'we police by consent PM, there's nothing we can do except manage it' Nutjobs are allowed to call for a second Holocaust waving Hitler photos every every weekend in London, SW1 ignores & doesn't cover in the news, cops just watch.
Farmers shd ignore the NFU and cops -
FLOOD THE ZONE,
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
Spread the word among farmers: Blair's lead adviser says CLOSE DOWN ALL SMALL FARMERS because they're a political enemy.
— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) November 12, 2024
RETWEET so farmers hear the Labour plan
The NFU is telling farmers NOT to come to London to demonstrate.
TERRIBLE ADVICE.
I've been in the PM office when… https://t.co/nn2oszoAjw
Welby resigns today.
Justin Welby's tenure as the Archbishop of Canterbury has been nothing short of a disaster. His leadership has been marred by numerous controversies and failures that have left the Church of England in disarray.
One of the most egregious failures of Welby's tenure is his handling of child abuse allegations within the Church. Despite being aware of serious allegations, Welby and his administration failed to notify the police promptly. This gross negligence has led to accusations of a cover-up and a failure to protect vulnerable individuals. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) highlighted these systemic failures, pointing out the Church's abysmal safeguarding practices under Welby's watch.
Welby has repeatedly found himself at the center of controversy due to his misguided stances on various social issues. His comments on Brexit were seen as overly political and divisive, alienating many within the Church. His inconsistent views on same-sex marriage have only served to deepen divisions within the clergy and laity, leaving the Church more fractured than ever.
Under Welby's leadership, the Church of England has faced severe scrutiny over its financial practices. The Church's investment strategies and the management of its vast property portfolio have been nothing short of a fiasco. Critics argue that more should be done to support local parishes and community projects, but Welby's administration has failed to deliver. The perception of financial mismanagement has eroded trust in the Church's leadership and raised serious concerns about its long-term sustainability.
Despite Welby's efforts to modernise the Church, attendance has continued to plummet during his tenure. This decline is a direct result of the Church's perceived irrelevance in contemporary society and its failure to engage effectively with younger generations. The dwindling attendance has further strained the Church's resources and highlighted the need for more effective leadership—something Welby has clearly failed to provide.
Justin Welby's time as Archbishop of Canterbury has been a catastrophic failure. From his mishandling of child abuse allegations to his controversial stances on social issues and financial mismanagement, Welby's leadership has left the Church of England in a state of disarray. As the Church continues to navigate these turbulent times, it is clear that Welby's tenure has done more harm than good.
For all the good that he has done as Archbishop, it would have been better if he had never held office at all!
Ed "Beaker" Miliband's delusional belief in net zero, and the consequences of his delusions have significant flaws that will have dire consequences for the UK. From increased energy bills to potential job losses and power cuts, the costs of these policies far outweigh the benefits.
One of the most immediate impacts of Miliband's net zero policies is the rise in energy bills. The push towards renewable energy sources, while environmentally friendly, comes with a hefty price tag. The National Energy System Operator (NESO) has estimated that the investment cost of decarbonising the National Grid by 2030 is £40 billion a year, which translates to an additional £1,300 per household.
This increase in energy costs will hit the poorest households the hardest, driving many into fuel poverty.
Miliband's policies also threaten the UK's energy security. The reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power is inherently unstable, as these sources are dependent on weather conditions. During periods of low wind or cloudy days, the energy supply could be severely constrained, leading to potential power cuts. The NESO has warned that achieving a carbon-neutral power grid will require a "Herculean effort" and significant flexibility in energy consumption.
This means that households and businesses may be asked to reduce their energy usage during peak times, further compromising energy security.
The transition to a net zero economy is expected to have a significant impact on the job market. While some jobs will be created in the renewable energy sector, many more will be lost in traditional industries such as oil, gas, and manufacturing. The Grantham Research Institute has estimated that approximately 6.3 million jobs in the UK, about one in five, will be affected by the transition to a green economy.
Without adequate retraining and support, many workers could find themselves unemployed, exacerbating social inequalities.
The instability of renewable energy sources also raises the risk of power cuts. Recent reports have highlighted the challenges of maintaining a stable energy supply during periods of low renewable energy generationhe reliance on wind and solar power means that the UK could face frequent power outages, disrupting daily life and economic activities. The NESO has suggested that the country will need to quadruple its energy flexibility to avoid such scenarios.
This could involve measures such as higher energy prices or incentives for households to reduce their consumption, further burdening consumers.
Ed Miliband's net zero policies pose significant risks to the UK. The increased energy bills, loss of energy security, job losses, and potential power cuts are serious concerns that cannot be ignored. The current approach is a delusion that the UK can ill afford.
Ladies and gentlemen please be upstanding for the CEO of The Value for Money Department - Mr David Goldstone.
In a move that has pissed large number of people off, the government has announced the creation of the Value for Money Department, appointing David Goldstone as its CEO. Goldstone, who will work just one day a week, is set to receive an eye-watering equivalent of £250,000 per annum. This decision has sparked outrage and raised serious questions about the very concept of value for money.
David Goldstone's appointment has been met with widespread criticism, not least because of his hefty salary for a part-time role. Goldstone will be paid £950 a day for an average commitment of one day a week. This arrangement has been described as a slap in the face to taxpayers, especially given the department's mandate to ensure efficient use of public funds.
Goldstone's career has not been without controversy. He was previously involved in the collapse of Ideoba, a high-tech company that failed to secure a £150,000 loan from the Welsh government. Goldstone, who was acting as a property adviser at the time, advised against providing the loan, a decision that led to the company's closure and the loss of up to 100 jobs. This incident raised serious questions about his judgment and the appropriateness of his advice.
Goldstone's involvement with HS2 has also been problematic. As a non-executive director, he was part of the team overseeing the high-speed railway project, which has been plagued by massive budget overruns and delays. Despite his efforts, HS2 has become a symbol of government overspending and inefficiency, casting further doubt on his ability to ensure value for money.
The creation of the Value for Money Department, ostensibly to ensure that public funds are used efficiently, is deeply ironic given the circumstances of Goldstone's appointment. The decision to pay him such a high salary for minimal work undermines the very principles the department is supposed to uphold. It sends a troubling message about the government's priorities and its commitment to fiscal responsibility.
The public reaction to this appointment has been overwhelmingly negative. Many see it as a blatant misuse of taxpayer money and a clear example of government hypocrisy. Critics argue that the funds allocated to Goldstone's salary could be better spent on essential public services or addressing pressing social issues.
The appointment of David Goldstone as the CEO of the Value for Money Department is a costly irony that highlights the government's questionable decision-making. Given Goldstone's troubled career and the exorbitant salary for a part-time role, this move raises serious concerns about the government's commitment to fiscal responsibility and the efficient use of public funds. As the public and media continue to scrutinise this decision, it remains to be seen whether the Value for Money Department will live up to its name.
