Does Rachel Reeves think that dying her lank brown hair ginger will detract the public’s attention from the fact that she’s Britain’s worst ever chancellor?
Maybe instead of ginger the Queen of Thieves should have dyed her barnet black and white – Cruella De Vil style.
Because that’s how we all think of her – as the cruel, heartless harridan who hurts vulnerable creatures. In Cruella’s case it was puppies. In Reeves’ case its pensioners some of whom are destined to die this winter thanks to her heartlessness.
In the few short weeks she’s been in power she’s sentenced Britain’s most vulnerable people to a winter where they’ll be forced to choose between eating and heating. And some will die. And God help Reeves when they do because she WILL be held responsible. She could have reversed this cruel policy at any time but she’s chosen not to because it would have been embarrassing for her.
She tried to justify it claiming it would save the Government £1.4bn ( a piddling amount) but that’s already been exposed as a lie as it’s likely to save just £700m .
So, she’s prepared to put pensioners’ lives on the line for a measly £700M at a time she’s gaily throwing billions at overpaid public sector workers, at illegal migrants, at foreign aid and at green energy projects.
This is the woman who before the election was boasting that she knew how to run an economy. Yet everything thing she’s done so far is proof that she doesn’t have a clue how to run an economy.
Its why since she’s been in charge growth has stagnated, its why employment has slumped and could soon be in freefall.
Her doomsday warnings about how tough things are going to get have already forced 9,500 of the country’s wealthiest millionaires to flee the UK which will have a huge impact on economic growth, something Reeves insisted before the election was vital to the future of this country.
One has to wonder if she actually knows it’s the rich who fund the growth and so it’s not a good idea to scare them off.
I know Starmer’s as thick as mince but what in God’s name possessed him to give one of THE most important jobs in Government to a half-wit who’s even thicker than he is?
Don’t forget Reeves spent the weeks leading up to election bragging that because she’d once worked for the Bank of England she was qualified her to run the economy.
It should be pointed out she worked in a very junior position at the Bank of England where she went straight after leaving university. She was there for six years and then went to HBOS to work on the retail mortgages team. HBOS then collapsed in 2008. It was second only to RBS as the worst bank failure in British history.
So I’m sorry but that uninspiring, lacklustre CV does not qualify her to run an economy.
The woman is an embarrassment, she’s hopeless but worse that that she’s arrogant – so arrogant that she can’t see the pig’s ear she’s making of what was a recovering economy.
And it WAS recovering. In the spring it had started to expand again but GDP stats published last month showed output in July was completely flat and now its stagnated. Worse experts are saying we may be only a few sets of quarterly data away from a full blown recession. And THAT will be down to Reeves.
How the Hell did she manage to do all that in just three months? I’ll tell you. Right from the off she has talked his country and the economy down saying that, thanks to the Tories, it was on its knees. Which is a lie because when she took over we were the fastest growing economy in the G7.
She has lied about there being a £22bn black hole. She’s squandered millions on public sector pay rises and many of those industries she’s just given obscene pay rises to are already threatening to strike again claiming what they got wasn’t enough.
She’s frightening off business and investment with all her doom and gloom talk .Business leaders optimism which had hit a three year high fell back in August and she’s alienating the British public by threatening us all with crippling tax hikes to “fix” an economy we know wasn’t broken (although under her it soon will be) .
Every day ministers – especially the prime minister – are having to defend her embarrassing, ill-thought out decisions because to do otherwise would expose her as the blithering idiot she is.
If Starmer had any guts he’d have overruled her on slashing the WFA. Instead this cowardly excuse for a PM said it was the “right thing” to do.
But what I despise most about her is that she’s a “nothing” politician. She has no personality, no flair, no originality. She lacks the “Oomph” of previous chancellors , many of whom made big, bold decisions in their first few weeks which changed Britain for the better.
In his first week, Gordon Brown privatised the Bank of England and created an independent monetary policy. In Reeves’ first week she pick-pocketed pensioners and consigned tens of thousands of them to a cold and terrifying winter.
And look at the other towering figures who have held the job – Denis Healey, Geoffrey Howe, Winston Churchill, George Osborne. Rachel Reeves is an intellectually bereft minnow by comparison.
Someone on Twitter wrote: “ She’s an amateur masquerading as an expert.”
Which is exactly why power in her hands is dangerous. Yes, she’s chancellor but she’s useless and she is not on the side of the British people.
She’s spent weeks boasting that’s she’s the country’s first female chancellor forgetting there are women who’ve been in Government who’ve held much higher office than chancellor.
But actually who cares what sex she is. The only thing that matters is Can She Do The Job and the answer to that question is resounding No.
All that remains now is to see how much damage she will be allowed to inflict on this country before someone has the guts to kick her out on her backside!