Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:02 pm

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 1:00 pm
Rachel Reeves has taxed those who can and lessened the burden on those that can’t and a trust debate from a woman who left her kids on their own so they could get pissed.

Pull the other one.

Different Kate McCann. This is the one from Times Radio. Still a cunt, mind.

Changed it, thanks.

Wasn’t eg the new taxes on gambling a tax reform? As many of us now see it, gambling now pays an amount of tax that goes some way to paying for the cost on society. Or the change to business rates? Or the extra tax on very expensive homes? Or taking some of the cost of greening the grid off bills?

Seems like there was quite a lot for the media to get their teeth into if they were interested in tax reform. They aren’t though. They wanted Reeves out amid market chaos and backbench anger.

BTL Bluesky doesn't get this.

Credit to a prominent Green here. As an aside, she didn't vote for Polanski, and may not be over-impressed with some of his stuff.

And here's why Reeves is being treated like this. (This account is another Warren, but it does reproduce useful stuff, as here)

This is usually the time when someone's discovered something disastrous in the Budget that has to be changed. In the apparent absence thereof, here we are, 5 days after the Budget. Rubbish about Reeves is apparently being repeated regularly on BBC 6 Music news.

"Ministers"? What even is the story here? That they wouldn't have agreed to some of the spending limits if they'd "known"? How much difference would "things are pretty bad and I need headroom, didn't have enough before" have made? That wouldn't have been any sort of misrepresentation. Things are pretty bad, we're in a hole.

I worry that Reeves will be pushed out over this.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 12:59 pm I worry that Reeves will be pushed out over this.

You're not alone.

Downplaying expectations is now a political scandal. Farage is laughing his head off.

All part of the Public School-educated media hoping to see things get broken. They're the bastards who came to your house at Christmas and broke your toys before they went home.

"The economy under your stewardship is performing much better than you first stated, what have you got to say to that Chancellor?"
Whoopee do?

Punch the air, say "GET IN!!", followed by "that's how you do it, Rishi"?

The problem here is if she had used it to fuck over the poorest in society then I would question it, however she did it create the ablity to help the poorer in society.

It's made people look and sound like fools, maybe that is the issue here. So they decided to double down and look even more like fools.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 12:59 pm I worry that Reeves will be pushed out over this.

I doubt it. The FCA, who Stride has bizarrely written to, will ignore him.

The SNP have also been calling for her to resign.

Party in silly attack on opponent shock.

Apart from the bit about growing up, this is spot on. Sunak and Hunt would have been hailed as clever, just like Osborne was.

Talking of Osborne, didn't he himself go overboard with the gloom v Reeves?

In further "Reeves didn't do what we confidently suggested she would" news.

I'm not particularly convinced by the Treasury argument. I fail to see how modal shift requires subsidies for bikes this expensive. I consider my nearly new electric bike (which cost about £1500) to be more than sufficient for my previous commutes.

Forgive me if "Treasury analysis" in this case means "would affect people like us".

Meanwhile:

US and UK agree zero tariffs deal on pharmaceuticals

I assume we'll still be paying more for medicines, but this seems a decent result. Where's the chlorinated chicken that we were assured by some of the more tedious Bluesky people were definitely coming despite "deluded" Starmer "sucking up to Trump"?

The number of people happy to lead other people into a trade war to make themselves feel like they're sticking it to the man, is quite something.

Multi-million-pound investment in legal aid to boost access to justice for victims
Criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92 million more a year to help address the ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system.

Or as Bluesky would probably put it "useless government tinkering at the edges".