Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!

[steeplejack]

The footballisation of politics continues.

"Embattled Rachel Reeves may be SACKED as soon as next week if her struggling outfit fails to come through a tricky test at League One Crawley in the FA Cup...Chairman Keir Starmer yesterday gave her a vote of confidence but whispers suggest he is sounding out potential replacements..."

In all seriousness Starmer would be crazy to sack her so soon into his government. I can't see it happening before next summer at the earliest. Sacking her because of market turbulence and a few big business egos being bruised by the budget would send out all sorts of awful signals; namely a weak and trouser-fouling Prime Minister can't withstand the rough and tumble of a couple bad news cycles, and panics.

But yesterday did have the feel of a Thick of It Christmas special; lots of desperate headlines about AI (mostly bollox as far as i can tell) and junior ministers being sent out to field barrages of questions about Reeves' future despite the government's story-of-the-day. coming back with one engine on fire and a dead tail-gunner.

Don't misunderstand me: I have no sympathy for Reeves a liar, fraud and plagiarising impostor. But when the alternatives are Wes fucking Streeting or Pat McFadden...

...thirty years of personality politics and addiction to political scandal / innuendo has left us unable to grasp at all important things like markets, finance, money, and how all these things combined are making democratically elected governments something of a sideshow.

 

[DotCommunist]

Pat McFadden, the renfield looking cunt

But yesterday did have the feel of a Thick of It Christmas special; lots of desperate headlines about AI

AI in the cameras to spot potholes, come on. Thats dogshit politics, for local elections. More likely to be using the data to train whatever security ai palantir is incubating

 

[Pickman's model]

...thirty years of personality politics and addiction to political scandal / innuendo has left us unable to grasp at all important things like markets, finance, money, and how all these things combined are making democratically elected governments something of a sideshow.

i'm not the only person who has noted the egregiously undemocratic election of this government, surely, where 80% of the electorate didn't vote for them

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The footballisation of politics continues.

"Embattled Rachel Reeves may be SACKED as soon as next week if her struggling outfit fails to come through a tricky test at League One Crawley in the FA Cup...Chairman Keir Starmer yesterday gave her a vote of confidence but whispers suggest he is sounding out potential replacements..."

In all seriousness Starmer would be crazy to sack her so soon into his government. I can't see it happening before next summer at the earliest. Sacking her because of market turbulence and a few big business egos being bruised by the budget would send out all sorts of awful signals; namely a weak and trouser-fouling Prime Minister can't withstand the rough and tumble of a couple of a few bad news cycles, and panics.

Agreed. Except Starmer and Reeves will both be gone by next summer and a Blairite re-set of the Labour Government launched. Both are hopeless, the public view of both is cast and it already feels like a case of allowing them to absorb the hits before an attempted 'lessons learned' clean up plan begins to get briefed to the supplicant media by the Blairites.

I predicted before the election that Starmer's footnote in history would be as the PM who ushered in right populism in Britain, but I hadn't grasped just how bad he is at politics and communication, so I now doubt he'll even make it to that dubious achievement.

The relaunch will see a 'populist turn' as someone like Streeting pretends to get tough on migrants, 'shirkers', the 'far right' and hoodie wearing low information types.

But yesterday did have the feel of a Thick of It Christmas special; lots of desperate headlines about AI (mostly bollox as far as i can tell) and junior ministers being sent out to field barrages of questions about Reeves' future despite the government's story-of-the-day. coming back with one engine on fire and a dead tail-gunner.

It really did. You could sense the rising panic and the fear behind the eyes setting in.

Don't misunderstand me: I have no sympathy for Reeves a liar, fraud and plagiarising impostor. But when the alternatives are Wes fucking Streeting or Pat McFadden...

...thirty years of personality politics and addiction to political scandal / innuendo has left us unable to grasp at all important things like markets, finance, money, and how all these things combined are making democratically elected governments something of a sideshow.

100%. But, Reeves must have known that half baked Bidenomics wthout growth or money was going to end up here? For a Labour Government to be elected without an industrial strategy, a national economic plan or even any sense of a coherent (let alone compelling) narrative on the economy - other than to attempt to will growth - was shocking. And, as a result, since coming into office the chickens have come home to roost and bad decisions (and politically toxic ones) have made matters much worse.

 

[ska invita]

Well I dont know what gilts are and seemingly no amount of reading up on it will ever seemingly make me understand this market system fully. Maybe it will all add up one day.

So for people like me who struggle with this I recommend this video - Gary goes through very slowly, getting out a paper and pen - and explains what this situation is about. Much better than an article in that regard
I get it - or at least I did whilst watching it - ask me again now and Id struggle to explain it back coherently - but I get the gist


Key point for me is this appears to be what will face every right wing government that doesn't grapple with retributing money from the rich. Certainly nothing specific to Rachel Reeves.

What I don't get is that Gary talks about The Market acting as if it has agency to instil discipline. Are the increasing rate of borrowing - particularly high for the UK - a deliberate act of agency to force something to happen in the economy of the UK? Why have borrowing rates gone up for the UK more than other countries?

 

[kabbes]

.What I don't get is that Gary talks about The Market acting as if it has agency to instil discipline. Are the increasing rate of borrowing - particularly high for the UK - a deliberate act of agency to force something to happen in the economy of the UK?

No. It’s people using a metaphor, which they then come to believe as if it is literal. There is no singular object that comprises “the market”, so it can’t have a singular opinion or act to instil a singular “discipline” in a strategic way. It’s just institutions that are implicitly capitalist acting according to those capitalist doctrines and thus creating consequences for those who aren’t toeing the same line.

Why have borrowing rates gone up for the UK more than other countries?

To the extent that they have, it’s largely because investors think that the BoE will be forced to keep future interest rates high for longer than other countries.

 

[brogdale]

No. It’s people using a metaphor, which they then come to believe as if it is literal. There is no singular object that comprises “the market”, so it can’t have a singular opinion or act to instil a singular “discipline” in a strategic way. It’s just institutions that are implicitly capitalist acting according to those capitalist doctrines and thus creating consequences for those who aren’t toeing the same line.

To the extent that they have, it’s largely because investors think that the BoE will be forced to keep future interest rates high for longer than other countries.

I was looking for a meme/image of the invisible hand, but couldn't see one.

 

[Serge Forward]

I was looking for a meme/image of the invisible hand, but couldn't see one.

 

[ska invita]

No. It’s people using a metaphor, which they then come to believe as if it is literal. There is no singular object that comprises “the market”, so it can’t have a singular opinion or act to instil a singular “discipline” in a strategic way. It’s just institutions that are implicitly capitalist acting according to those capitalist doctrines and thus creating consequences for those who aren’t toeing the same line.

To the extent that they have, it’s largely because investors think that the BoE will be forced to keep future interest rates high for longer than other countries.

Well yeah that's what I thought.
I'm surprised so many people talk about markets instilling disciple etc. gets said onon here too.

Regarding BofE , in what way are they "forced" to keep interests high?

 

[kabbes]

Regarding BofE , in what way are they "forced" to keep interests high?

Forced by a combination of their terms of reference regarding inflation targets and the neoliberal consensus about how inflation “must” be controlled (namely, the money supply).

 

[ska invita]

Might as well let AI run the treasury, the picture is of people all acting with no choice but just following the rules

 

[Elpenor]

Basically states can’t enact fiscal policy outside a narrow set of parameters if it means some breadheads in suit and tea in the city can’t get their bonuses

but if the bank goes bust that’s for the state to pick up and to pay the bonuses

 

[Pickman's model]

Might as well let AI run the treasury, the picture is of people all acting with no choice but just following the rules

At least there'd be some intelligence in the treasury then

 

[PTK]

Agreed. Except Starmer and Reeves will both be gone by next summer and a Blairite re-set of the Labour Government launched.

No, they won't. I will put a bet on it.

 

[ska invita]

No, they won't. I will put a bet on it.

Aye agree...at the moment the better Reform do the more it secures Labours position by splitting the Tory vote. I think they feel safe and theyve filled the Labour ranks with sheep

 

[Pickman's model]

Aye agree...at the moment the better Reform do the more it secures Labours position by splitting the Tory vote. I think they feel safe and theyve filled the Labour ranks with sheep

Kebab fodder

 

[moochedit]

Aye agree...at the moment the better Reform do the more it secures Labours position by splitting the Tory vote. I think they feel safe and theyve filled the Labour ranks with sheep

Also, I may be wrong but i don't think labour party rules make leadership challenges as easy as it is for tory mp's. Corbyn was able to hang on despite most of his mp's being against him.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

No, they won't. I will put a bet on it.

Any reason for your confidence in the indefatigably of the dynamic duo?

By the way, I don’t see a leadership challenge (noting others musing about how hard it is to depose Labour leaders)…I see an orderly handover to the Blairites once Starmer has concluded that ‘he’s taken it as far as he can’.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

.

 

[PTK]

Any reason for your confidence in the indefatigably of the dynamic duo?

By the way, I don’t see a leadership challenge (noting others musing about how hard it is to depose Labour leaders)…I see an orderly handover to the Blairites once Starmer has concluded that ‘he’s taken it as far as he can’.

Is there any reason for your confident prediction about a "handover"? Harold Wilson did resign in 1976, it is true, but that was because, we now know, that he knew that he was developing dementia. Even then, there was not a "handover" but a Leadership election.

 

[weltweit]

It has probably been said already but the NI increase and reduction of thresholds is actually quite a big deal for companies and organisations. If they want to maintain their profitability they will have to find other ways to save money.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Is there any reason for your confident prediction about a "handover"?

There are three:

1. Starmer was never supposed to win. He was lined up as the new Kinnock. His role was to ‘make the party electable again’ before handing over to Streeting or someone else.
2. He can’t do politics and he cannot communicate. Managerialism isn’t going to extract Labour from the hole it’s in.
3. At some point MPs on small majorities- including Rayner, Streeting and others - will conclude that they are going to be unemployed without change and a populist turn.

Harold Wilson did resign in 1976, it is true, but that was because, we now know, that he knew that he was developing dementia. Even then, there was not a "handover" but a Leadership election.

Ironically, the man he handed over to is the figure Starmer most reminds me of. Both emblematic of the end of a particular form of politics.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Also, I may be wrong but i don't think labour party rules make leadership challenges as easy as it is for tory mp's. Corbyn was able to hang on despite most of his mp's being against him.

Is there any reason for your confident prediction about a "handover"? Harold Wilson did resign in 1976, it is true, but that was because, we now know, that he knew that he was developing dementia. Even then, there was not a "handover" but a Leadership election.

I think the leadership election rules have been changed a few times since then (not sure if blair didn't change them) and have an idea the rules are different / make it more difficult to challenge the leader when the party is in government.

i don't have a copy of the party rules to hand, though

 

[ska invita]

1. Starmer was never supposed to win. He was lined up as the new Kinnock. His role was to ‘make the party electable again’ before handing over to Streeting or someone else.
2. He can’t do politics and he cannot communicate. Managerialism isn’t going to extract Labour from the hole it’s in.
3. At some point MPs on small majorities- including Rayner, Streeting and others - will conclude that they are going to be unemployed without change and a populist turn.

1. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
2. you me and most of the country agree but he's got a massive majority to enjoy and Labour can easily win next election based on current polling.
3. Maybe - thats the only hope we have - but that's not this summer or next summer, if ever. IMO

 

[moochedit]

I think the leadership election rules have been changed a few times since then (not sure if blair didn't change them) and have an idea the rules are different / make it more difficult to challenge the leader when the party is in government.

i don't have a copy of the party rules to hand, though

Yeah i think i also remember reading it was harder when they are in goverment but don't know details.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

1. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

You will recall that Starmer ran for leader promising to largely maintain the programme of Corbyn. Once elected he began systematically dumping any vestige of that programme. He was chosen as the candidate of the centre and right of the party not to win an election but to purge the left.

2. you me and most of the country agree but he's got a massive majority to enjoy and Labour can easily win next election based on current polling.

The key there is current polling. Starmer’s net approval rating is -40. The poll lead has gone. By-election and local election defeats are incoming. The bottom has not yet been reached.

3. Maybe - thats the only hope we have - but that's not this summer or next summer, if ever. IMO

He and Reeves will be gone by the end of summer 26.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

He and Reeves will be gone by the end of summer 26.

he might continue his thatcher tribute act by having / winning a small war somewhere

 

[Smokeandsteam]

he might continue his thatcher tribute act by having / winning a small war somewhere

Possibly. But unlike Thatcher he’d manage to lose…

 

[ska invita]

You will recall that Starmer ran for leader promising to largely maintain the programme of Corbyn. Once elected he began systematically dumping any vestige of that programme. He was chosen as the candidate of the centre and right of the party not to win an election but to purge the left.

Purge the left and win though surely

The key there is current polling. Starmer’s net approval rating is -40. The poll lead has gone. By-election and local election defeats are incoming. The bottom has not yet been reached.

He and Reeves will be gone by the end of summer 26.

Im not going to argue - Id love to see him humiliated