Tag Archives: rachel reeves

Jack Meredith

We can both sympathise with Reeves and not excuse the cuts

By Jack Meredith | Fri 4th July 2025 - 12:41 pm

On Wednesday, 2nd July, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves was seen crying during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Reeves has stated that the reason for her tears was a personal issue, which she would rather not discuss in public. A perfectly reasonable request that I’m sure everyone can relate to.

I’ve had people close to me mock the Chancellor for displaying her emotions, calling it “unprofessional” and, in some cases, question whether Reeves is up for the job. These same people, to my knowledge, did not say anything when DUP politician Jim Shannon cried when questioning then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Downing Street parties during lockdown. 

These situations are markedly different, presumably, but the fact remains that there is a disparity in the treatment of politicians here, despite both displaying emotion.

I’m prefacing my article with this statement as I want to stress a rather important point that I’m seeing being written off on social media: you can feel empathy for someone, even a public figure, and still hold them accountable.

The government’s welfare reforms, as I previously covered, are set to plunge 430,000 people into poverty by removing their access to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). It is a cruel policy that was meant to save £5.5 billion, which has now been shown not to be the case.

And Rachel Reeves, along with many other Labour MPs, has supported this policy, with Reeves arguably being a driving force behind it due to her strict self-imposed financial rules, which require government departments to make savings wherever possible.

But that leaves us with the question: SHOULD we feel bad for Rachel Reeves? Some have argued that this is not the case, as she is in a position of power and has used those powers to approve cuts to welfare for those who need it most. I struggle to abide by this view.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 1 Comment
Caron Lindsay

What are Liberal Democrats looking for from the spending review?

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 11th June 2025 - 8:15 am

Today Rachel Reeves announces her spending review. What are Liberal Democrats looking for from it?

It will surprise nobody to hear that social care is top of the agenda, alongside a closer relationship with Europe. Without the latter, Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper says, Labour will be trying to drive the economy forward with the handbrake on. And anyone who has tried to do that in a car will know how impossible that feels and how much of an idiot you feel when you realise that you have forgotten to take the handbrake off.

Daisy said:

People have been left desperately disappointed in the Government’s failure to break clean from years of Conservative neglect and finally start delivering the change that people were promised.

Today’s spending review must deliver progress on social care. The Government’s bid to start reforms has barely progressed since it was announced six-months ago. Yet we all know the simple truth: without solving the social care challenge, putting money into the NHS today will be like pouring water into a leaky bucket.

Ministers should also be slashing the reams of red tape that are holding local businesses back and negotiate a bespoke UK-EU customs union, rather than pursuing painful cuts to already stretched budgets. Until they do, the Chancellor will still be trying to drive the economy forward with the handbrake on.

Here she is speaking about the key issues:

The Party has also commissioned House of Commons library research into the impact of possible cuts.  The Independent reports;

However, the analysis, carried out by researchers at the House of Commons library commissioned by the Lib Dems, found that unprotected departments — which excludes NHS England, the core schools budget and defence — could see real-terms cuts worth nearly £5 billion in total by 2028/29.

The calculation, based on Reeves’ promise that will not hike taxes, was made before the chancellor committed a further £1.25bn a year to reversing cuts of winter fuel payments to pensioners, a U-turn which was confirmed on Monday. It also does not take into account another potential U-turn on ending the two child benefit cap, which could cost a further £3bn.

The Home Office budget is forecast to take a huge hit, being almost half a billion quid short. The Independent report forecasts dire outcomes for social care and education. These would be incredibly short-sighted. It is so obvious that fixing social care is vital to sorting out the whole NHS, and why would you cut back on skills development when you are also hell bent on cutting social security and putting even greater holes in the safety net than the Conservatives’ best efforts managed?

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 1 Comment
Chris Perry

Pension Funds and Economic Growth

By Chris Perry | Thu 23rd January 2025 - 9:40 am

Rachel Reeves’ proposed merger of Local Government Pension Schemes and consolidation with defined contribution pension schemes to create a mega-fund to unlock investment and boost growth is high risk and needs safeguards and guarantees. This is not Government or taxpayers’ money but belongs to the members of each particular pension scheme and is in effect their retirement savings. When Gordon Brown altered the tax position of pension funds he sent many into deficit which brought about the demise of defined benefit final salary schemes – with even the Local Government Schemes moving from “final salary” to “average salary”. The index linking used to be to earnings, then RPI and more recently changed to CPI – even for pensions in payment.

These changes are not being made by the Chancellor to improve pensions but to use pension funds to boost investment in search of growth. Economic growth is the Government’s priority. But what are the risks and knock on effect of this proposal for pensioners? One cannot fix whole systems problems with component level solutions.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence into the social determinates of health which has demonstrated the correlation between income and demand upon the NHS. 3/5ths of the expenditure of the NHS is on older people. Therefore, to constantly reduce or risk the income of older people, who got no benefit from the two  pre-election reductions in National Insurance but do pay more income tax due to the freezing of the tax free personal allowance, recently lost their free TV licence and now their winter fuel allowance will increase the pressures on the NHS at the very time Government is committed to reducing waiting times.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 19 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Jo Swinson defends Rachel Reeves from “staggeringly sexist” attack

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 25th February 2015 - 9:01 am

Jo Swinson GlasgowRemember in 2010 when the Daily Mail went apoplectic and Tory backbenchers’ murmured criticism made headline news as David Cameron took time off after the birth of his daughter Florence just weeks after becoming Prime Minister? No, me neither, because it didn’t happen.

Five years on, however, Labour’s Rachel Reeves is under fire from the Mail and Tory MP Andrew Rossindell after announcing her plans to take 3 months’ maternity leave after she gives birth to her second child in June. From the Guardian:

Andrew Rosindell, the Tory MP for Romford, told the Daily Mail that a role in the cabinet required a person’s full attention. “I don’t want to say someone who is having a baby is not eligible to be a cabinet minister, but I certainly think perhaps the demands of that particular job will require someone to give it their full attention.”

“I don’t expect Rachel Reeves to be in the cabinet after the election because I expect the Conservatives to win, but clearly people need to be put in the positions they can handle.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged and | 28 Comments
Stephen Tall

Vince Cable nails Labour’s crass and inaccurate attacks on Lib Dems’ support for the minimum wage

By Stephen Tall | Wed 15th January 2014 - 8:00 pm

Sometimes you’ll hear Labour folk claim, with absolute certainty, that the Lib Dems opposed the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998. They’re wrong, as a glance at the voting record shows not a single Lib Dem MP voted against and 26 voted in favour.

Today Labour’s shadow secretary of state for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves, upped the ante, demanding to know:

where was the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable)? He was nowhere to be seen in the debates. He was nowhere to be seen on the voting record. On Second Reading and Third Reading, he failed to vote. Apparently, he abstained because he had reservations about a minimum wage. Perhaps he will stand up today to profess his concern for the plight of the low-paid.

Vince didn’t respond directly immediately. But he did respond:

Continue reading »
Posted in News and Parliament | Also tagged , and | 21 Comments
Sara Bedford

Labour’s hypocrisy on the ‘Granny Tax’

By Sara Bedford | Thu 22nd March 2012 - 3:09 pm

The response from Labour and the tabloids to yesterday’s Budget have majored on the patronisingly termed ‘Granny Tax’.

However Ed Balls and colleagues must be delighted that so far everyone seems to have missed that the last Government froze the Age Allowance between 2009-11 – or as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves would term it Labour imposed ‘an enormous stealth tax for older people’.

Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 31 Comments
Mark Pack

Why Vote … – the other books reviewed

By Mark Pack | Mon 22nd March 2010 - 11:15 am

I’ve already reviewed two of the titles in the new seven book series from biteback: Why Vote Liberal Democrat and Why Vote. But what to make of the other fives titles – covers Labour, Conservative, Green, SNP and Plaid? (Although a UKIP book was also publicised, it never got published as UKIP failed to produce the necessary copy.)

Both the Labour and Conservative books are ‘unofficial’ in the sense that they are by prominent party members, but ones who have no official role in the party’s policy or campaigning decisions – Rachel Reeves, Labour …

Continue reading »
Posted in Books | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , and | 1 Comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon McGrath
    I am afraid this article is an example of someone applying simplistic solutions in an area of which they are wholly ignorant. Even a cursory study of the vario...
  • Lin Macmillan
    I am very supportive of Christine and her decision. I am very unhappy that our MPs were not whipped to vote against the dreadful Tory amendment. I am also ver...
  • Richard Dickson
    Thank you Christine for all you've done, and doubtless will continue to do with great style, with and for people in our communities whose voice is often not lis...
  • Nigel Quinton
    “Whipped to abstain” - isn’t that the very definition of virtue signalling irrelevance? What an utter Westminster bubble farce....
  • Chris Lewcock
    Very poor group management. Christine should never have been pushed into this position....