https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o BBC's report is pretty damning to be fair. Reminds me of the phrase used to describe her not too long ago: "Fundementally honest"
Anyone who defended Boris Johnson (not saying you HM) has no business ever calling for any politician to be held accountable for lying or pretty much any other scandal. There's a huge hypocrisy on the right, where they excuse the inexcusable (Trump, Truss, Brexit, Farage, Sunak, Johnson etc.) but at the whiff of a Labour scandal, they're suddenly clutching pearls and crying 'dishonesty.' The bar has been set particularly low for the past 10 years. I think people who helped set it there have some nerve to then suddenly expect us to go back to a world where MP's resign at the first hint of a scandal.
Agreed. Deffo no Johnson fan. Labour were particualry heavy handed in their criticism of Tory sleaze however and need to be whiter than white because of that. This and especially the timing of it whiffs of a hatchet job. I would be incredibly surpised if Free Gear Kier didn't know about any of this well in advance. Recent decisions have been so unpopular I think it's the start of getting shot, a get our clause allowing him to save a bit of face if you will. God knows what we'll get in as a replacement however.
Reading through the whole report, it does seem that to an extent Reeves was maybe ‘led on’ by her boss and an older colleague at a comparable level who were both keen to enjoy the fruits of a somewhat ambiguous expenses policy. Another case of what you do in your 20s na*veté having unfortunate consequences in your future career. But I do agree that after all the ‘upright honesty’ propaganda Labour expounded in the previous 3+ years it does look hypocritical, even if it was not a milking of public money involved. As for the ‘massaging’ of her CV…such a stupid thing to do when it was always obvious it would be exposed for what it was.
Not sure I'd have ever thought that feathering my own pocket out of expenses would have been OK, regardless of cuture. Mind you what passed for expenses when I worked at a brokers would make your eyes water. I did once get a bollocking for adding a tip to a restaurant bill which I had to pay for when entertaining 20 odd people on a work event.
It will become another immature and juvenile point scoring exercise for the “right” and “left” and the fact they are both laughing at the public as they do the same thing and their respective think tanks “UK Onward” and “Labour Together” have similar policy, branding and donors while hosting and attending each others conferences and MPs at “events” will never be called into question by any of them.
Sadly I was only responsible for reporting on expense accounts at the brokers, I had no expense account myself. Yacht hire was probably the most expensive regular item and was questionable as an allowable expense even back then. Although to be fair it was all taken out of profit not other people's pockets.
Not really, There's a difference between massively overspending to entertain clients in a private company to having an agreement with other managers to alledgedly skim off performance related bonus money for personal gain in a listed company. Those concerned left the company before the investigation was concluded so I'm sure they were all confident of being found innocent of any wrongdoing and were fundementally honest.
I don't think they were. The opposition should always call out lies and the Tories over the latest ten years were awful, lying to the queen. No they don't. The Tories called out new labour, did you decide they needed to be whiter than white in their tenure. Why is the bar lower for the Tories?
In general though I don't think reeves will go. The media are making a mountain out of a molehill. There's no incentive for labour to replace her. I doubt there are more than a dozen people in the UK who dislike Reeves so strongly they wouldn't vote labour but would be swung back by a different labour chancellor. 5 years to go, and there's much bigger things for the government and the population to be concerned about then this nonsense about Reeves.
Heavy handed was incorrect I meant concentrated, their level of criticism of the Tories was right and calling out the opposition is right. What you don't do is throw stones inside a glass house. That's hypocrisy. It's an opinion and yes because of the above, your opinion may differ, that's fair enough. Discussing opinions is what this section is for. It isn't. Criticism is fair, it's criticism when you're doing the exact same thing that in my view makes it even worse. I neither support the Tories or Labour. I had hoped Labour would be better, they may well be worse.
I think there is an incentive to replace her if they want to back track on some of the budget due to it's unpopularity (and in my opinion mistakes) to save some face. If they want to plough on regardless then it can be explained away. Let's face it there's not a lot new in the information, just a bit of evidence add detail to add meat to the bones.
https://www.threads.net/@raianeka/p...QGz5tFXegzLA_F4L-WUu2rH3cT3UcNnUJ6NlfOMPwzM0A BREAKING: SHADOW CHANCELLOR EXPENSES SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ECONOMIST AND FINANCIAL TIMES. Will reeves survive this? Boris might have lied to the Queen and his government gave out billions in PPE contracts to friends, but did he ever expense £400 in newspaper subscriptions? Both as bad as each other!
The reason for getting rid of her is compelling - based in the fact that she failed to immediately reinstate the ridiculous National Insurance cuts Sunak imposed on Chancellor Hunt. That lack of understanding of the national finances did gir Sunak, and so it should for Reeves. As a HBOS customer I am outraged!
