Sir Keir Starmer #3

[moldwarp]

Thanks for your reply . You make a lot of very interesting points there and I would say that you're spot on about Sir Keir. I live in Scotland and I saw a few posters on this thread were making a some thought provoking points about the situation here, but I don't want to derail the thread.

No no, please, I love talking to Scots about Scottish politics! The two friends I've spoken to most about it only have bad things to say about the SNP (one of them was a Salmond fan tho and thought Sturgeon did him dirty) but I'm always desperate for views 'on the ground' so to speak, tell us please!

 

[moldwarp]

OK apols for double posting but have you guys seen the SCENES today from Hamas UK Your Party??

Basically as far as I can make out:

1. Zarah Sultana set up a website and acquired a domain through which people could formally join the party
2. 6 hours later Jeremy Corbyn sent out an 'urgent message' warning followers that an unauthorised person had set up a "supposed membership portal" which isn't the official one and members should ignore it or, if already signed up, cancel their direct debits. This message was co-signed by the top male members of Your Party (Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam) but NO Zarah.
3. 21 minutes later Zarah fires back with a message called "My Response" where she reams out her fellow Your Party leaders and accuses them of sexism and misogyny and 'calls on' Corbyn (via bleeping TWITTER) to 'meet her'

So it looks like:

1. Your Party, far from its lofty aims of espousing progressive socialism or whatever, is currently committing mass hara kiri over a web domain
2. Everyone in the party who isn't Zarah Sultana hates Zarah Sultana and won't even be in same room as Zarah Sultana
3. Zarah Sultana appears to be literally the only woman left in Britain who's failed to notice that male socialists and male islamists tend to be a bit, ya know, sexist, sometimes, so bang the two together and you might get quite a lot of sexism

Oh my days! The chaos! The incompetence! WE ARE IN CLOWNWORLD!!!

Even in the darkest of days, my friends, humour and laughter still find us

ETA I shouldn't have called Your Party Hamas UK. That was wrong of me. That was uncalled for. Hamas are actually pretty damn well organised.

 

[AllieBee]

OK apols for double posting but have you guys seen the SCENES today from Hamas UK Your Party??

Basically as far as I can make out:

1. Zarah Sultana set up a website and acquired a domain through which people could formally join the party
2. 6 hours later Jeremy Corbyn sent out an 'urgent message' warning followers that an unauthorised person had set up a "supposed membership portal" which isn't the official one and members should ignore it or, if already signed up, cancel their direct debits. This message was co-signed by the top male members of Your Party (Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam) but NO Zarah.
3. 21 minutes later Zarah fires back with a message called "My Response" where she reams out her fellow Your Party leaders and accuses them of sexism and misogyny and 'calls on' Corbyn (via bleeping TWITTER) to 'meet her'

So it looks like:

1. Your Party, far from its lofty aims of espousing progressive socialism or whatever, is currently committing mass hara kiri over a web domain
2. Everyone in the party who isn't Zarah Sultana hates Zarah Sultana and won't even be in same room as Zarah Sultana
3. Zarah Sultana appears to be literally the only woman left in Britain who's failed to notice that male socialists and male islamists tend to be a bit, ya know, sexist, sometimes, so bang the two together and you might get quite a lot of sexism

Oh my days! The chaos! The incompetence! WE ARE IN CLOWNWORLD!!!

Even in the darkest of days, my friends, humour and laughter still find us

ETA I shouldn't have called Your Party Hamas UK. That was wrong of me. That was uncalled for. Hamas are actually pretty damn well organised.

Bodes well doesnt it!

 

[Winthropp Tuesday]

OK apols for double posting but have you guys seen the SCENES today from Hamas UK Your Party??

Basically as far as I can make out:

1. Zarah Sultana set up a website and acquired a domain through which people could formally join the party
2. 6 hours later Jeremy Corbyn sent out an 'urgent message' warning followers that an unauthorised person had set up a "supposed membership portal" which isn't the official one and members should ignore it or, if already signed up, cancel their direct debits. This message was co-signed by the top male members of Your Party (Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam) but NO Zarah.
3. 21 minutes later Zarah fires back with a message called "My Response" where she reams out her fellow Your Party leaders and accuses them of sexism and misogyny and 'calls on' Corbyn (via bleeping TWITTER) to 'meet her'

So it looks like:

1. Your Party, far from its lofty aims of espousing progressive socialism or whatever, is currently committing mass hara kiri over a web domain
2. Everyone in the party who isn't Zarah Sultana hates Zarah Sultana and won't even be in same room as Zarah Sultana
3. Zarah Sultana appears to be literally the only woman left in Britain who's failed to notice that male socialists and male islamists tend to be a bit, ya know, sexist, sometimes, so bang the two together and you might get quite a lot of sexism

Oh my days! The chaos! The incompetence! WE ARE IN CLOWNWORLD!!!

Even in the darkest of days, my friends, humour and laughter still find us

ETA I shouldn't have called Your Party Hamas UK. That was wrong of me. That was uncalled for. Hamas are actually pretty damn well organised.

Absolutely astonishing that the left are eating themselves… who’d have thunk it?

It now also looks like Corbyn has been removed as a ‘person with significant control’ on the Your Party companies house statement as of 15th September…

 

[Peter Out]

No no, please, I love talking to Scots about Scottish politics! The two friends I've spoken to most about it only have bad things to say about the SNP (one of them was a Salmond fan tho and thought Sturgeon did him dirty) but I'm always desperate for views 'on the ground' so to speak, tell us please!

Ok, you asked . Well, of course the big issue here is - will there or won't there be a referendum? And when Starmer became PM, a lot of SNP people were saying that he couldn't refuse to grant one, but of course he can - and he did.
But the interesting thing for me, and it seems to be something that everyone misses, is that support for independence/SNP is always stuck somewhere in the 30 to high 30s % of the electorate.
The headline figures of the referendum in 2014 were 55% Vs 45%. But that isn't strictly true. Those were the percentages of people who actually turned out to vote. If you were to take into account the electorate as a whole, then you end up with 38% yes and 49% no. This tallies with the SNP vote generally - they get majorities but Westminster and Holyrood elections here get between 50 to 60% turnouts mostly, and the SNP at best get half of that. Even their big landslide of 2015 was from half of the votes on a 71% turnout.

 

[AllieBee]

Absolutely astonishing that the left are eating themselves… who’d have thunk it?

It now also looks like Corbyn has been removed as a ‘person with significant control’ on the Your Party companies house statement as of 15th September…

And we now have Zack Polanski coming in for the Greens getting his X foot soldiers to poach the Your Party voters!

 

[moldwarp]

And we now have Zack Polanski coming in for the Greens getting his X foot soldiers to poach the Your Party voters!

Oh fabulous. What’s his pitch? “Join us and you’ll grow 3 cup sizes! Yes, even the blokes!”

 

[moldwarp]

Absolutely astonishing that the left are eating themselves… who’d have thunk it?

It now also looks like Corbyn has been removed as a ‘person with significant control’ on the Your Party companies house statement as of 15th September…

Oh really? How intriguing. According to the Combined Code (company law), Corbyn would have to agree to that change of control of course.

Now why would Jeremy Corbyn, a man of such high principles, not want to be a person with significant control of Your Party? Hmmmm. Could it be...that persons with significant control (PDMRs = Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibility) are exposed to any potential legal or criminal action against the company in question?

Now, a cynic might speculate that there may be some ...rumour.... that Your Party might possibly maybe have some teeny links (financial beneficiary?) to the proscribed Palestine Action, which itself has been...rumoured to possibly maybe have some teeny link of its links to the network around Hamas?

Could it be that our Dear Jezza has taken some legal counsel and decided that he doesn't want to sacrifice precious time on his beloved allotment due to the inconvenience of potentially at some point in the future having to assist Plod in their enquiries? After all, you can't grow many prize winning marrows if you're banged up in nick.

But this is all malicious, baseless speculation! I certainly don't believe it! Jeremy is, per his erstwhile disciple Owen Jones, a 'kindly figure' and a 'man of peace'. He certainly has zero sympathy with Hamas, and no links to them at all. None! He attended the funeral of one of their best fighters, you say? No, not at all! He was, I quote, "present but not involved". Sure don't we all sometimes find ourselves accidentally in the Middle East at terrorist funerals, present but not involved? Exactly! It's a mistake any of us could make!

And anyway, Hamas aren't terrorists, OK? OK so their founding charter quotes the Hadith about the obligation to destroy World Jewry. But sure, they don't really mean it ok?? They're just innocent peaceful young boys forced to defend their ancestral homeland against the evil marauding Zios who also control the world's media and the world's financial system and....Zarah? Am I doing this right?

 

[Winthropp Tuesday]

Oh really? How intriguing. According to the Combined Code (company law), Corbyn would have to agree to that change of control of course.

Now why would Jeremy Corbyn, a man of such high principles, not want to be a person with significant control of Your Party? Hmmmm. Could it be...that persons with significant control (PDMRs = Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibility) are exposed to any potential legal or criminal action against the company in question?

Now, a cynic might speculate that there may be some ...rumour.... that Your Party might possibly maybe have some teeny links (financial beneficiary?) to the proscribed Palestine Action, which itself has been...rumoured to possibly maybe have some teeny link of its links to the network around Hamas?

Could it be that our Dear Jezza has taken some legal counsel and decided that he doesn't want to sacrifice precious time on his beloved allotment due to the inconvenience of potentially at some point in the future having to assist Plod in their enquiries? After all, you can't grow many prize winning marrows if you're banged up in nick.

But this is all malicious, baseless speculation! I certainly don't believe it! Jeremy is, per his erstwhile disciple Owen Jones, a 'kindly figure' and a 'man of peace'. He certainly has zero sympathy with Hamas, and no links to them at all. None! He attended the funeral of one of their best fighters, you say? No, not at all! He was, I quote, "present but not involved". Sure don't we all sometimes find ourselves accidentally in the Middle East at terrorist funerals, present but not involved? Exactly! It's a mistake any of us could make!

And anyway, Hamas aren't terrorists, OK? OK so their founding charter quotes the Hadith about the obligation to destroy World Jewry. But sure, they don't really mean it ok?? They're just innocent peaceful young boys forced to defend their ancestral homeland against the evil marauding Zios who also control the world's media and the world's financial system and....Zarah? Am I doing this right?

I’m raging I can only ‘heart’ this post once.

I don’t have anything half as eloquent to reply with, except to say ‘spot on’.

 

[AllieBee]

I’m raging I can only ‘heart’ this post once.

I don’t have anything half as eloquent to reply with, except to say ‘spot on’.

Agreed. Its a fabulous post

 

[Fledgling Psycho]

Agreed. Its a fabulous post

Me too. Wonderful to read. Well said @moldwarp

 

[moldwarp]

Well you’re all very kind, but actually I stand corrected. It would appear that Corbyn handed over control of Your Party’s finances to Karie Murphy. And that’s why Zarah is now getting ready to sue.

Karie Murphy! Now she’s a character. No Toytown Trot like the Novara lot: Karie’s the real deal. A genuine dyed in the wool Trotskyite, working constantly for the Glorious Revolution which will sweep away capitalism and parliamentary democracy. She’s so committed to the cause that she even banged Len McKluskey, which is going waaaayyy beyond the call of duty if you ask me. Rather you than me Comrade.

Karie is the one who was kicked out of Labour in 2020 when an investigation found her guilty of: bullying Jewish staff members; bullying and undermining young activists and exposing the sordid details of a Labour woman’s late miscarriage and subsequent breakdown, thus breaking a confidentiality agreement. The Far Left, eh? Lovely people. Truly on the right side of history.

Anyways, now that Zarah’s on her own, she’s going to have to start a new party. But what to call it, I wonder? How about…the National Anti Zionist Independent party? Yeah, that could work. Bit of a mouthful though. Maybe she can use the acronym. Let’s see now… N…A…Z…

Yes! It’s perfect!

 

[Dinate]

There have been some interesting developments in the small matter of the Labour Together donations which weren't declared due to 'admin errors'. It's looking like possibly there were no 'admin errors', but rather McSweeney deliberately decided to stop declaring donations in 2018: he had initially correctly declared them in 2017 after being informed by the Electoral Commission that said donations did need to be declared:

Starmer’s chief of staff was told to describe £700k donations as ‘adm…

archived 24 Sep 2025 07:09:31 UTC

archive.ph

The issue that has arisen is that when the new director of Labour Together took over from McSweeney and realised that the declarations had not been declared, McSweeney initially claimed that the EC had told him in a phone call in 2018 that they did not have to be declared. McSweeney was then told by lawyers that there was no record of such a call having taken place and suggested that if he was unable to substantiate his claim, it would be better to simply state that the donations had not been declared due to 'admin errors'. This is what duly occurred so seemingly McSweeney lied about was unable to substantiate the call.

I'm posting this second article from the Canary because it helpfully contains a breakdown of the implications of this new revelation:

So did McSweeney learn hiding pro-Israel donors from Starmer, or Starmer from McSweeney?

The Tories - yes, the Tories - have received email leaks over McSweeney - but they beg the question, is the bigger crook him or Starmer?

www.thecanary.co

From this article the implication is that McSweeney deliberately hid the donations as he didn't want the Corbyn-led Labour Party to know who was bankrolling their operation and how much was being raised. To extrapolate on the second point, I think that they wouldn't have wanted to have questions raised as to what they were actually doing with so much money and for whose benefit. They then gave a false excuse of admin errors to minimise the sanctions and also not to generate interest into what they were doing.

Misleading the Electoral Commission is a criminal offence. McFadden has come out today saying that there's nothing to see here and reminded us that McSweeney is a 'very talented man'. I'm sure McFadden is correct in that assessment of McSweeney's abilities, but that's irrelevant. But before anyone gets too excited, I'm sure that before long, McSweeney will be the lucky recipient of a vote of confidence from the PM. And we all know what happens next....

 

[AllieBee]

There have been some interesting developments in the small matter of the Labour Together donations which weren't declared due to 'admin errors'. It's looking like possibly there were no 'admin errors', but rather McSweeney deliberately decided to stop declaring donations in 2018: he had initially correctly declared them in 2017 after being informed by the Electoral Commission that said donations did need to be declared:

Starmer’s chief of staff was told to describe £700k donations as ‘adm…

archived 24 Sep 2025 07:09:31 UTC

archive.ph

The issue that has arisen is that when the new director of Labour Together took over from McSweeney and realised that the declarations had not been declared, McSweeney initially claimed that the EC had told him in a phone call in 2018 that they did not have to be declared. McSweeney was then told by lawyers that there was no record of such a call having taken place and suggested that if he was unable to substantiate his claim, it would be better to simply state that the donations had not been declared due to 'admin errors'. This is what duly occurred so seemingly McSweeney lied about was unable to substantiate the call.

I'm posting this second article from the Canary because it helpfully contains a breakdown of the implications of this new revelation:

So did McSweeney learn hiding pro-Israel donors from Starmer, or Starmer from McSweeney?

The Tories - yes, the Tories - have received email leaks over McSweeney - but they beg the question, is the bigger crook him or Starmer?

www.thecanary.co

From this article the implication is that McSweeney deliberately hid the donations as he didn't want the Corbyn-led Labour Party to know who was bankrolling their operation and how much was being raised. To extrapolate on the second point, I think that they wouldn't have wanted to have questions raised as to what they were actually doing with so much money and for whose benefit. They then gave a false excuse of admin errors to minimise the sanctions and also not to generate interest into what they were doing.

Misleading the Electoral Commission is a criminal offence. McFadden has come out today saying that there's nothing to see here and reminded us that McSweeney is a 'very talented man'. I'm sure McFadden is correct in that assessment of McSweeney's abilities, but that's irrelevant. But before anyone gets too excited, I'm sure that before long, McSweeney will be the lucky recipient of a vote of confidence from the PM. And we all know what happens next....

Its all so bloody corrupt isnt it. Wouldn't it be lovely to have absolute transparency from govt in all areas. All donations and their sources should be declared. Personal donations should be banned. Expenses should be curtailed, none of this second home nonsense. They should receive expenses to the tune of a travelodge room if staying in London. These corrupt politicians are fleecing the system and bleeding us dry.

 

[moldwarp]

Its all so bloody corrupt isnt it. Wouldn't it be lovely to have absolute transparency from govt in all areas. All donations and their sources should be declared. Personal donations should be banned. Expenses should be curtailed, none of this second home nonsense. They should receive expenses to the tune of a travelodge room if staying in London. These corrupt politicians are fleecing the system and bleeding us dry.

Corruption on the Left is like antisemitism: it's a feature, not a bug.

See the thing with Tories, and the Economic Right and Centre Right in general, is that they're very open about liking wealth creation. They see wealth creation as a good thing, for themselves and for society as a whole. And they're technically correct because GDP is something that's created, not recycled. Excessive Government debt kills GDP growth as per the classic Reinhardt & Rogoff study (and if Rachel Reeves would just crack the spine of her brand new, unopened copy of Economics for Dummies ONCE, she'd know this, too).

It's like that old philosophical conundrum, should you befriend the greedy man or the ascetic man? Well both should probably come with a health warning but on balance I'd rather befriend the greedy man because he's looking to get richer, and if I tag along with him and do what he's doing, chances are I'll get a bit richer too.

I admire the honesty of people who freely admit that they want to make money for the wealth and security of those they love. The only people who don't care about making money are people who are so privileged that they're comfortably insulated from the effects of its absence.

Now Labour politicians are just as greedy and grasping as Tories are. They also want to enrich themselves, get favours and status and wealth. But because they ostensibly adhere to the bone-headed and economically illiterate cult of socialism, they can't admit it. So they get rich in secret, by corruption and cronyism, whilst preaching the virtues of heavy taxation and self-sacrifice to the rest of us.

Sure you don't think the great leaders of the USSR practised what they preached do you? Nah: it was all cheap outfits and humble dachas for the photoshoot in Pravda, Swiss bank accounts and mansions in private.

Give me the man who's honest about wanting to make money, over the man who cosplays as 'working class' and humble, any day of the week. Yeah yeah I'm looking at YOU, Chinny Toolmakerson.

 

[Fledgling Psycho]

@moldwarp Chinny says " If you don't like the changes we are making, you can leave".

 

[Piff paff puff]

Corruption on the Left is like antisemitism: it's a feature, not a bug.

See the thing with Tories, and the Economic Right and Centre Right in general, is that they're very open about liking wealth creation. They see wealth creation as a good thing, for themselves and for society as a whole. And they're technically correct because GDP is something that's created, not recycled. Excessive Government debt kills GDP growth as per the classic Reinhardt & Rogoff study (and if Rachel Reeves would just crack the spine of her brand new, unopened copy of Economics for Dummies ONCE, she'd know this, too).

It's like that old philosophical conundrum, should you befriend the greedy man or the ascetic man? Well both should probably come with a health warning but on balance I'd rather befriend the greedy man because he's looking to get richer, and if I tag along with him and do what he's doing, chances are I'll get a bit richer too.

I admire the honesty of people who freely admit that they want to make money for the wealth and security of those they love. The only people who don't care about making money are people who are so privileged that they're comfortably insulated from the effects of its absence.

Now Labour politicians are just as greedy and grasping as Tories are. They also want to enrich themselves, get favours and status and wealth. But because they ostensibly adhere to the bone-headed and economically illiterate cult of socialism, they can't admit it. So they get rich in secret, by corruption and cronyism, whilst preaching the virtues of heavy taxation and self-sacrifice to the rest of us.

Sure you don't think the great leaders of the USSR practised what they preached do you? Nah: it was all cheap outfits and humble dachas for the photoshoot in Pravda, Swiss bank accounts and mansions in private.

Give me the man who's honest about wanting to make money, over the man who cosplays as 'working class' and humble, any day of the week. Yeah yeah I'm looking at YOU, Chinny Toolmakerson.

The working class cos players really give me the boak. It's the ultimate insult, bypassing the often poverty stricken real life experience and claiming that you once worked in McDonald's therefore you're working class Sir Kier champion of the working class with all of your university educated cabinet

 

[Miss Begotten]

Corruption on the Left is like antisemitism: it's a feature, not a bug.

See the thing with Tories, and the Economic Right and Centre Right in general, is that they're very open about liking wealth creation. They see wealth creation as a good thing, for themselves and for society as a whole. And they're technically correct because GDP is something that's created, not recycled. Excessive Government debt kills GDP growth as per the classic Reinhardt & Rogoff study (and if Rachel Reeves would just crack the spine of her brand new, unopened copy of Economics for Dummies ONCE, she'd know this, too).

It's like that old philosophical conundrum, should you befriend the greedy man or the ascetic man? Well both should probably come with a health warning but on balance I'd rather befriend the greedy man because he's looking to get richer, and if I tag along with him and do what he's doing, chances are I'll get a bit richer too.

I admire the honesty of people who freely admit that they want to make money for the wealth and security of those they love. The only people who don't care about making money are people who are so privileged that they're comfortably insulated from the effects of its absence.

Now Labour politicians are just as greedy and grasping as Tories are. They also want to enrich themselves, get favours and status and wealth. But because they ostensibly adhere to the bone-headed and economically illiterate cult of socialism, they can't admit it. So they get rich in secret, by corruption and cronyism, whilst preaching the virtues of heavy taxation and self-sacrifice to the rest of us.

Sure you don't think the great leaders of the USSR practised what they preached do you? Nah: it was all cheap outfits and humble dachas for the photoshoot in Pravda, Swiss bank accounts and mansions in private.

Give me the man who's honest about wanting to make money, over the man who cosplays as 'working class' and humble, any day of the week. Yeah yeah I'm looking at YOU, Chinny Toolmakerson.

Oh yes, it’s definitely just “the left” who are economically illiterate.
I just hope all those praying for Dame Nigel to be PM have paid off their mortgages, have private healthcare and a huge pension.

 

[moldwarp]

@moldwarp Chinny says " If you don't like the changes we are making, you can leave".

LOL is Chinny cosplaying 'tough guy' again in response to today's attack from Andy 'Eyelashes' Burnham? Ooooh Chinny, you're such a hard nut. It's giving 2017-era "duck off and vote Tory then!"...the favoured cry of a various neckbeard Corbyn disciples of the time. It worked so well for them that time...didn't it?

The working class cos players really give me the boak. It's the ultimate insult, bypassing the often poverty stricken real life experience and claiming that you once worked in McDonald's therefore you're working class Sir Kier champion of the working class with all of your university educated cabinet

Speaking as an actual working class woman (single parent, immigrant, autodidact etc etc) there is nothing more cringe-worthy than watching North West London poshoes larping as working class. It's like watching a 6 year old boy dress up in his dad's best suit because he wants to look grown up. Everything's too big and he looks awkward and ridiculous. What posh Socialists miss every time (because they've never lived our lives) is that we working classes are rabid capitalists. We know the power of hard work and wealth creation - the joy and self-respect of being the first in your family to get A Levels, buy a property etc etc. It's magic.

Communism doesn't work because it rests on the outdated labour theory of value which is so manifestly incorrect that you don't even need to disprove it; you just need to have eyes. Centrally planned communist economies collapse because shorn of the profit motive there is no innovation which is why the poor guys in Russia were driving Trabants which they had to wait three years for and were so crap that they practically had to peddle them around like Fred Flinstone. But most importantly without a supply and demand dynamic, there is no price mechanism and therefore no avenue for price discovery. And that's a big problem if you're a member of the Central Planning Committee and one day you wake up and realise that all your brain surgeons and quantum engineers have fled the country because they very sensibly think they should be paid a bit more than cleaners and toolmakers.

 

[moldwarp]

Oh yes, it’s definitely just “the left” who are economically illiterate.
I just hope all those praying for Dame Nigel to be PM have paid off their mortgages, have private healthcare and a huge pension.

This is a very interesting comparison to make. I presume that, like me, you lament the fact that the ultimate arbiter of any Finance Minister's success is the judgement of the international bond markets - it's not good but in a globalised world it's a fact. So it's interesting then that the Truss Budget resulted in the UK 30-year gilt yield rising to 5.06% in just one week and the BoE then had to intervene. However - once the full, productivity-strangling reality of the Reeves Budget filtered into the real economy, it made the situation even worse - the UK 30-year gilt yield stands at around 5.6%, the highest level since 1998. And because the UK Govt has an unusually high (in comparion to other countries) proportion of 'linkers' ie index linked bonds tied to inflation, and the BoE is failing to get inflation under control, we're in a bit of a slow death vortex (blame Gordon Brown for the linkers btw. No excuses on the Tories, who could and should have dealt with it). This is why we're currently spending >8% of our total outlay on interest payments alone. We're one bond market tantrum away from becoming Greece, my country of origin and which I've written about at length here.

TLDR: Reeves Budget has been equally if not more damaging than Truss's, but the damage has taken much longer to unfold.

Basically if you want a quick analogy, the Truss budget was a rogue surgeon bursting into your operating theatre and amputating your leg without anaesthetic. The Reeves Budget is that same surgeon, bursts in, no anaesthetic, but instead of amputating your leg with a surgical saw, he uses a rusty slightly serrated teaspoon. Under Dr Truss, you die of massive sudden blood loss but at least it's quick. Under Dr Reeves, you die of gangrene, it takes aaaages, and it's bleeping painful.

Pretty dire huh? It's almost enough to make me burst into tears in front of my boss at work. But nah I won't do that, because I'm not a disingenuous CV-faking chancer.