Rachel from accounts

[Penelope]

10 hours ago, Cosmicblue said:

I rather suspect with her real financial experience (lack of - remember she was punting 'economist' credentials initially) being in some doubt as working in the Complaints Department doesn't really count and now insinuations of expense claim irregularities that time is running out.  There will be a step-down/re-org event this year,  

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a case of 'let the briefing against, begin'.

It's how they do things, the duplicitous .................. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I just love this front page;

 

[old man]

12 hours ago, Cosmicblue said:

I rather suspect with her real financial experience (lack of - remember she was punting 'economist' credentials initially) being in some doubt as working in the Complaints Department doesn't really count and now insinuations of expense claim irregularities that time is running out.  There will be a step-down/re-org event this year,  

Yep Di is in the wings waiting?

[JohnfromUK]

She does have a rather long list of 'questionable claims' and allegations.

• At Lloyds/HBOS - taking time off (sick days?) to attend her work as a Labour councillor (can't now find reference to it)
• At Lloyds/HBOS - questions over expenses claims
• At Lloyds/HBOS - questions over job title and function - leading economist or complaints desk of the mortgage division?
• At Bank of England - time employed - 6 years or 10 years
• Function as 'Economist' or in accounts dept?
• In some paper/book she wrote - where it turns out parts were a straight lift from others work (plagiarism)

Maybe even more will surface in time?

[Penelope]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

She does have a rather long list of 'questionable claims' and allegations.

• At Lloyds/HBOS - taking time off (sick days?) to attend her work as a Labour councillor (can't now find reference to it)
• At Lloyds/HBOS - questions over expenses claims
• At Lloyds/HBOS - questions over job title and function - leading economist or complaints desk of the mortgage division?
• At Bank of England - time employed - 6 years or 10 years
• Function as 'Economist' or in accounts dept?
• In some paper/book she wrote - where it turns out parts were a straight lift from others work (plagiarism)

Maybe even more will surface in time?

All this has been bumping around for sometime, but is only now reaching prominence now, which leads me to think that the briefing campaign has started to oust her.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Penelope said:

All this has been bumping around for sometime, but is only now reaching prominence now, which leads me to think that the briefing campaign has started to oust her.

Unless you have a really big bombshell, lots of minor detonations spaced out can do much more damage.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Another fool defending her..............................

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rw538d353o

 

"Chancellor Rachel Reeves can "absolutely" be trusted, a minister has said, despite questions about her CV and use of expenses while working at a bank.

A BBC investigation discovered that while working at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), Reeves was subject to a detailed whistleblowing complaint which raised concerns about her use of company money.

A spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor had no knowledge of the investigation, always complied with expenses rules and left the bank on good terms.

Defending Reeves on the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme, Science Secretary Peter Kyle said: "We should be thankful we have an economist by training and by experience delivering for this country."

Kyle also claimed the BBC's reporting had been "inaccurate", adding: "The head of HR at that bank at that time says it's untrue, said that she never, ever received a file on Rachel Reeves.

"And she says that before she left the bank, there was no investigation that passed her desk. And she's also said if there was one, it would have passed her desk."

"I didn't see any of that reporting included in the story I read yesterday evening on the BBC website."

However, the BBC's reporting did include quotes from Jane Wayper, who was an HR business partner, not head of HR as Kyle described her.

Wayper had told the BBC she "would have been made aware of any investigation which concluded there was case to answer".

She said this was because "I would have been required to organise and oversee a disciplinary process".

The BBC has not reported that Reeves was subject to a conclusive finding or disciplinary action.

The initial stage of an investigation found that Reeves and her two colleagues appeared to have broken rules, according to a senior source, but we have not been able to establish what happened next.

The BBC has also seen memos, receipts, emails and other documents which suggest that some of Reeves' expenses spending during her time at HBOS may have breached rules."

[clangerman]

14 pages of sour grapes and still the mole hills have not turned into mountains lol 

[ShootingEgg]

6 hours ago, clangerman said:

14 pages of sour grapes and still the mole hills have not turned into mountains lol 

Wait until April when the fan gets turned on then. Are you actually happy with the changes and proposals they have put in place which were NOT in the manifesto  quite the opposite after defending pensioners and farmers over the last two year in the build up to what is now a joke of a government. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, The trouble is they will do so much damage to the Economy before the next Election

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:

Wait until April when the fan gets turned on then. Are you actually happy with the changes and proposals they have put in place which were NOT in the manifesto  quite the opposite after defending pensioners and farmers over the last two year in the build up to what is now a joke of a government. 

the only change is a different set of shysters are now making us worse of its never been anything but more of the same! 

[ShootingEgg]

3 minutes ago, clangerman said:

the only change is a different set of shysters are now making us worse of its never been anything but more of the same! 

Id happily agree there.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Following the BBC's look at her background and the outcry from some Labour Ministers, they've had another look at her history;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmg924nk1o

"Since BBC News reported on Thursday that Rachel Reeves had exaggerated her online CV and had been investigated over her use of expenses while working at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), Labour colleagues have mounted a robust defence of the chancellor.

Sir Keir Starmer said she had "dealt with any issues that arise" from the questions about her CV, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting told BBC Newsnight that she was doing a "brilliant and difficult job".

But Labour figures have questioned our reporting on the expenses investigation, with one cabinet minister calling it totally inaccurate."

[GrayA]

14 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, The trouble is they will do so much damage to the Economy before the next Election

I don't get the hatred towards Reeves/Labour, the economy under 14 years of the Tories was a totally disaster, the economy was in recession in the last quarter of 2023 - it grew 0.4% in December - Truss cost my defined pension, over 15%, the Tories saw gilts go from 1.8% to 4.5% and they've stayed there, costing billions in extra interest payments....

Taxes are going to have to rise, we need more teachers, nurses, nhs dentists, infrastructure and now defence, this will all cost money, money we haven't got as a country & as the economy hasn't grown much in the last 14 years, i don't see why anything is going to change significantly.

Govt ministers are hardly ever experts in their field, teachers don't become education secretaries,  Hunt wasn't an economist, many of the businesses he started went to the wall & he certainly knew nothing about health! 

By slashing Police numbers, we have the disaster that is Police firearm licensing departments, which has caused the industry huge issues.

There would be an HR record on Reeves if she falsified expenses, so far there isn't, to me, this is just another smear against them, same as Starmer and his field or Rayner and tax dodging... all BS.

 

Edited February 15 by GrayA

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, GrayA said:

I don't get the hatred towards Reeves/Labour, the economy under 14 years of the Tories was a totally disaster, the economy was in recession in the last quarter of 2023 - it grew 0.4% in December - Truss cost my defined pension, over 15%, the Tories saw gilts go from 1.8% to 4.5% and they've stayed there, costing billions in extra interest payments....

So youre saying things are better now labour are in power, really ?

You want to see DEEP recession, Kier says hold my beer !

You want to see billions spent on stupid projects, public sector wage rises that have already cost billions ?

You want to see more illegal migration, covered !

You want to see more 2 tier policing, erosion of civil liberties and freedoms, labour are the party for you 

[amateur]

6 minutes ago, GrayA said:

I don't get the hatred towards Reeves/Labour, the economy under 14 years of the Tories was a totally disaster, the economy was in recession in the last quarter of 2023 - it grew 0.4% in December - Truss cost my defined pension, over 15%, the Tories saw gilts go from 1.8% to 4.5% and they've stayed there, costing billions in extra interest payments....

Taxes are going to have to rise, we need more teachers, nurses, nhs dentists, infrastructure and now defence, this will all cost money, money we haven't got as a country & as the economy hasn't grown much in the last 14 years, i don't see why anything is going to change significantly.

Govt ministers are hardly ever experts in their field, teachers don't become education secretaries,  Hunt wasn't an economist, many of the businesses he started went to the wall & he certainly knew nothing about health! 

By slashing Police numbers, we have the disaster that is Police firearm licensing departments, which has caused the industry huge issues.

There would be an HR record on Reeves if she falsified expenses, so far there isn't, to me, this is just another smear against them, same as Starmer and his field or Rayner and tax dodging... all BS.

 

You are clearly reading from the Grauniad handbook.

The Conservatives had to try to repair the damage left by the last Labour government (remember the note left by that Treasury minister), then Covid struck and Putin invaded Ukraine, all of which mucked things up.

I'm not saying that Cameron et al were brilliant at what they did, but at least they were not as dire as the current shower.

[oldypigeonpopper]

28 minutes ago, GrayA said:

I don't get the hatred towards Reeves/Labour, the economy under 14 years of the Tories was a totally disaster, the economy was in recession in the last quarter of 2023 - it grew 0.4% in December - Truss cost my defined pension, over 15%, the Tories saw gilts go from 1.8% to 4.5% and they've stayed there, costing billions in extra interest payments....

Taxes are going to have to rise, we need more teachers, nurses, nhs dentists, infrastructure and now defence, this will all cost money, money we haven't got as a country & as the economy hasn't grown much in the last 14 years, i don't see why anything is going to change significantly.

Govt ministers are hardly ever experts in their field, teachers don't become education secretaries,  Hunt wasn't an economist, many of the businesses he started went to the wall & he certainly knew nothing about health! 

By slashing Police numbers, we have the disaster that is Police firearm licensing departments, which has caused the industry huge issues.

There would be an HR record on Reeves if she falsified expenses, so far there isn't, to me, this is just another smear against them, same as Starmer and his field or Rayner and tax dodging... all BS.

 

Hello, After 25 posts you have not mentioned anything to do with what this Forum is about, I have seen what all Labour Governments can do since Harold Wilson and i will say again despite how the Conservatives made a political mess this Labour Government will tip us into the Abyss

[Gordon R]

GrayA - I can't say I agree with most of your last post, as it flies in the face of reality. That said, I hope you and your guide dog have a good day.

[old man]

55 minutes ago, GrayA said:

I don't get the hatred towards Reeves/Labour, the economy under 14 years of the Tories was a totally disaster, the economy was in recession in the last quarter of 2023 - it grew 0.4% in December - Truss cost my defined pension, over 15%, the Tories saw gilts go from 1.8% to 4.5% and they've stayed there, costing billions in extra interest payments....

Taxes are going to have to rise, we need more teachers, nurses, nhs dentists, infrastructure and now defence, this will all cost money, money we haven't got as a country & as the economy hasn't grown much in the last 14 years, i don't see why anything is going to change significantly.

Govt ministers are hardly ever experts in their field, teachers don't become education secretaries,  Hunt wasn't an economist, many of the businesses he started went to the wall & he certainly knew nothing about health! 

By slashing Police numbers, we have the disaster that is Police firearm licensing departments, which has caused the industry huge issues.

There would be an HR record on Reeves if she falsified expenses, so far there isn't, to me, this is just another smear against them, same as Starmer and his field or Rayner and tax dodging... all BS.

 

Putting a different point of view, surely the start of fiscal proberty starts with not giving away fortunes to all and sundry before taxing more?

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, old man said:

Putting a different point of view, surely the start of fiscal proberty starts with not giving away fortunes to all and sundry before taxing more?

That really depends on whether you sing the national anthem at party conferences, or whether you sing 'Keep the red flag flying' ?
Oh, and referring to each other as 'comrade' 

[old man]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

That really depends on whether you sing the national anthem at party conferences, or whether you sing 'Keep the red flag flying' ?
Oh, and referring to each other as 'comrade' 

Mm, the flag is under repair at the moment? Being re purposed for the party elite.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, old man said:

Mm, the flag is under repair at the moment? Being re purposed for the party elite.

Yeah, theyre probably getting the EU stars stitched into it.

[matone]

At least we have Mr Vance to speak the truth about the lot of them!

[Yellow Bear]

2 hours ago, matone said:

At least we have Mr Vance to speak the truth about the lot of them!

Thin end of the wedge we can hope

[GrayA]

5 hours ago, amateur said:

You are clearly reading from the Grauniad handbook.

The Conservatives had to try to repair the damage left by the last Labour government (remember the note left by that Treasury minister), then Covid struck and Putin invaded Ukraine, all of which mucked things up.

I'm not saying that Cameron et al were brilliant at what they did, but at least they were not as dire as the current shower.

The What handbook???

There was a tradition of leaving notes like that, going back to 50s....

It was a Global financial Crash that Labour dealt with in 2008 & by all accounts, they did very well, as we avoided a recession and no banks went bust...unlike the USA,  debt to GDP was 67% in 2010, by 2020 it was 85%... the Tories had 10 years before Covid & everything got worse in that time, not a single thing improved, debt to GDP is now almost 100%, the highest since WW2, all under the Tories.

They also ran down our military, inc halving the size of the UKs navy.

As for "not as dire" nothing could be worse than Truss, she came close to causing economic collapse.

But the point here is Labour have been in for 7 months, yet its somehow comparable to 14 years of the Tories? or as one former PM once said "A week is a long time in Politics"

As there is nothing that can be done to change the Govt until 2029, maybe give them a bit more time, its not like complaining is going to change anything.