Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

[Spartacus]

Will she stay or will she go now?

If she goes there will be trouble 

If she stays it will be double 

So come on Kier let us know know 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/19/rachel-reeves-is-dragging-the-labour-party-down-starmer-uk/

[alice]

The  Kwasi effect is being considered. 

[HeadNun]

I can't access the article - what's the gist? 

I took the markets getting jittery when she was crying at PMQs to be a sign that they trusted her. But maybe it was because they were simply worried about any form of instability. 

The NIC hikes have stymied the economy, which we could all see a mile off. Will a wealth tax improve things? Does anyone here think the trickle down has any impact and that chasing out the super rich will help things? Or are we just seeing off the biggest contributors to the economy? And has the Kwasi approach ever worked anywhere else? 

Economics is not my strong point at all, I'd love to know others' opinions, but it seems to be she has few options, especially as the party is so divided. 

[David Peckham]

54 minutes ago, HeadNun said:

 

Economics is not my strong point at all, 

I wouldn't feel too bad about that. It's one of the few degree areas that you can do a BA or a BSc in, so it's a fairly wide-ranging and complex subject.

Certainly Truss, Kwasi and Reeves seem to struggle with it.

Edited Sunday at 13:55 by David Peckham
Sp

[jazzer]

While they struggle with economics of UK plc, collectively we all suffer as a result of their ineptitude. 

[HeadNun]

Yes but what's the answer, Jazzer? No government can simply walk in and fix the economy - get the bills down, grow it and reduce debt. There is no silver bullet. The public (and the press) wants everything now, everything cheaper, but with better public services and lower taxes. 

In the radio and paper, all you ever hear is pundits, MPs, think tanks and economists saying what won't work, but no one seems to know what will work. 

I'm genuinely interested to hear what other views people have on here, and what they think will help, or make things worse. 

Edited Sunday at 15:10 by HeadNun
Typos, as usual, probably missed about ten more

[jazzer]

Simply, give us a snap election now as the last 12 months in office honestly have not been great in any sense. Let someone else have a go at turning around UK plc before it's too late. At least the last administration had the inflation and unemployment rates going in the right direction at the END. 

Edited Sunday at 15:34 by jazzer

[vladi]

No party is willing to tackle the "elephant in the room" which is the national debt.

It is costing the country circa £100 Billion ANNUALLY to service that debt. That is more than the defence and education budgets.

That debt burden has to be reduced which in reality means cost cuts. That means cutting back state pensions, index-linked pensions for civil servants and others such as police, NHS etc. It means cutting back on universal credit and cutting the number of people who are claiming benefits.
 

[Rockets]

To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers. 

A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, vladi said:

No party is willing to tackle the "elephant in the room" which is the national debt.

It is costing the country circa £100 Billion ANNUALLY to service that debt. That is more than the defence and education budgets.

That debt burden has to be reduced which in reality means cost cuts. That means cutting back state pensions, index-linked pensions for civil servants and others such as police, NHS etc. It means cutting back on universal credit and cutting the number of people who are claiming benefits.
 

Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate.  The main parties could have been more honest before the election.  Reform is deluded.

[jazzer]

don't you mean migrate not immigrate

[alice]

Surely emigrate?

[Dulwich dweller]

8 hours ago, jazzer said:

Simply, give us a snap election now as the last 12 months in office honestly have not been great in any sense. Let someone else have a go at turning around UK plc before it's too late. At least the last administration had the inflation and unemployment rates going in the right direction at the END. 

Someone else other than the tories? They fleeced our country,left us In the brown stuff and got annihilated in the last election as a result of that. In my opinion they're part of the problem and not a solution. 

Edited Monday at 00:02 by Dulwich dweller
Spelling

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate

You know that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of all total tax in the UK right? If they leave who picks up the tax slack? This is an inconvenient truth ignored by many. This is why Labour did a u-turn on non-doms because they started leaving and left the Treasury with a growing tax hole to fill. 

Edited Sunday at 23:38 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy. 

If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy. 

What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ??? 

 

 

[jazzer]

"What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???"

Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in. 

At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.