Latest news with #EllieReeves
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Survival-mode Starmer throws tearful chancellor to wolves at PMQs
It was painful to watch. An intrusion into something deeply private. A grief observed. Rachel Reeves breaking down in tears. Her face lined with misery as Keir Starmer failed to guarantee she would still be in her job at the next election. A reminder that politicians are humans too. If you prick us, do we not bleed? Rachel, a woman alone in the uncaring, public gaze of prime minister's questions. A mere punchbag for the leader of the opposition. Undefended by Starmer. Keir couldn't even bring himself to make sure she was OK. Too wrapped up in his own world. Maybe he didn't even notice. Too busy trying to protect his own reputation. In the brutal world of Westminster, it's now every person for themselves. Perhaps it was always that way. Politicians just like to kid themselves otherwise. Only at the end did Reeves's sister, Ellie, get the chance to comfort her. It wasn't meant to be this way. For the past few years, Labour has been the Keir and Rachel show – the rest of the party there to make up the numbers. Keir to be the frontman, Rachel to be the economic brains behind the operation. The woman to reassure the country and the markets that Labour was credible. In opposition, they were the perfect couple, the antidote to Tory incompetence. Now their joint project is in chaos. On Tuesday night, the Commons was reduced to something like the farce of the Brexit years as last-minute concessions were made. The welfare bill reduced to the status of WINO. Welfare In Name Only. The legislation gutted and £5bn added to government spending. Money that Rachel didn't have and for which she was being asked to carry the can. Welcome to Labour's first anniversary on Friday. Just the success story they had in mind on election night. This was never going to be an easy PMQs for Starmer. Or for any of the cabinet, for that matter. Most of them looked as if they had been up for days. Several sleepless, long, dark nights of the soil. Few caught one another's eyes. Liz Kendall never made it to the frontbench. She preferred to stay hidden behind the speaker's chair. Presumably on the advice of her therapist. She had spent enough time getting humiliated the day before. Enough was enough. Keir himself looked pasty grey. Attempting a grin as the ironic Tory cheers outdid those from his own benches as he took his place at the dispatch box. Trying to normalise things. As if everything that had happened to his government in the past few days was par for the course. And he settled in nicely with a friendly question from Labour's Paul Waugh. The kind of question that will get you a long way with the whips. Would he agree that Labour had done brilliantly on free school meals? Unsurprisingly, he would. Over to Kemi Badenoch. Surely even she couldn't mess this one up. An open goal. All she needed to do was tap the ball over the line. For a while, it looked as if she might not manage even that. But somehow the ball rolled slowly into the net for her first ever win against Starmer. Though Keir could probably thank his lucky stars that he wasn't facing someone else. Then it could have been an annihilation. The thing with Kemi is that her manner is so off-putting. That weird sense of superiority when she has so little to be superior about. The arrogance and the condescension. The perpetual sneer. The feeling she is permanently doing the rest of us a favour. All of which makes it hard to like her. Your sympathies are naturally drawn to whoever her opponent happens to be. Kemi began with a gratuitous swipe at Waugh. Everyone knew he was trying to limit the damage to his party and every MP has been used as toady fodder at some time. The gracious thing to do would have been to ignore it. But Kemi just can't help herself. She's never yet passed up the opportunity to kick a man when he's down. Any backbencher is fair game to her. Then on to the main question. How much money would the welfare bill save? This prompted a bit of euphoric recall from Keir. Memories of the welfare bill he had wanted it to be. It would be the best bill ever. It was like the day before had never happened. The Tories had broken the system and Labour were mending it. There were millions of people back in work and everyone couldn't be happier with the way things had gone during the government's first year. Now it was Kemi's turn to indulge her own fantasies. The Tory attacks always look better on paper than they are in reality. Because the Conservatives have got their own record of failure to defend. You can't go around blaming someone else for not yet fixing what you broke. Except you can if you are Kemi. She must be the only person who thinks the Tories left government having improved the welfare system. Then we came to the tears. Kemi observed that the chancellor was toast. How long would she be around? This was too much for Rachel. Labour would later try to claim she had something else on her mind but it didn't look that way at the time. Rachel does care. She has wanted to be chancellor for years. She might yet even turn out to be a good one. Just will she be asked to lay down her life to save Keir's? Not everyone in Westminster gets to have a second chance. Not even Kemi. The chances of her still being leader of the opposition come the next election are even worse than Rachel's. There was time for one hostile question from his own benches. This from Kim Johnson asking where his much-promised Hillsborough law had got to. Starmer insisted it was on its way. Other Labour MPs chose to keep things constituency related. Desperate not to rock the boat. Wanting to forget WINO. At least for 30 minutes. Keir tried to sound appreciative. Anxious to prove he was a listening man. He could start by hearing Rachel.
The National
02-07-2025
- Business
- The National
Gilt yields spike following Rachel Reeves's tears during PMQs
Her sister Ellie Reeves, also an MP, was seen holding her hand as she left the chamber on Wednesday. Following PMQs ten-year gilt yields, which move inversely to the price of UK Government bonds and affect the cost of borrowing for the government, rose above 4.6%. (Image: UK Parliament) Reeves is facing intense scrutiny over her handling of public finances after the welfare bill was watered down, with rebel Labour backbenchers reportedly claiming the Chancellor intervened on reforms and looked for quick savings ahead of the Spring Statement. Labour's welfare U-turn last night will cost the UK Government £3 billion extra, according to the Resolution Foundation, while the restoration of winter fuel payments will add a further £1.3bn to government bills. Following the Spring Statement, economists warned that Reeves had left herself too little headroom, leaving public finances on shaky ground. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) also warned that extra spending commitments would lead to tax rises. Meanwhile, City analysts have previously estimated that the government could be forced to raise in excess of £20bn in order to restore her fiscal buffer. Other economists have suggested that the Chancellor could revise fiscal rules to allow for more spending, but higher borrowing commitments could rattle bond markets, with current debt interest payments set to total £104bn, more than double the levels seen in the 2010s.
Daily Mail
28-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
ANDREW PIERCE reveals the breathtakingly cynical reason why Keir Starmer WON'T sack chancellor Rachel Reeves...yet
As MPs poured out of the Commons after another stormy Prime Minister's Questions this week, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves cut a particularly lonely figure. With her head bowed, Reeves was exiting the Chamber alone – until one colleague caught up with her to walk loyally by her side. It was the chairman of the Labour Party, one Ellie Reeves, the Chancellor's younger sister. No other Labour MP, it seems, was willing to be seen associating with the embattled Chancellor. What a dismal year she has had. Reeves came into office last summer promising to 'unlock private investment', 'fix the foundations of our economy' and deliver 'sustained economic growth'. She has failed on all three counts – and it increasingly shows. Many Labour MPs commented on the Chancellor's body language as she took her usual place next to Starmer at PMQs. 'She looked broken, like she had been tranquillised,' says one source. 'She is clearly deeply troubled and unhappy.' There have even been reports – sharply denied by the Treasury – that Reeves spent much of Thursday in floods of tears amid shouting matches with colleagues. 'It's not true: she is resolute,' says one of her allies – a diminishing group these days. Now the Chancellor's problems are about to get even worse. Keir Starmer 's screeching U-turn over disability benefit cuts means she has to find billions to fill a budget black hole – and comes only weeks after her humiliating £1.25 billion volte-face on winter fuel payments. With almost 130 Labour MPs joining the revolt over the Welfare Bill, there are now huge questions about the Prime Minister's grip over his party. Keir Starmer 's screeching U-turn over disability benefit cuts means Reeves has to find billions to fill a budget black hole But it is the debacle over disability cuts that threatens to destroy the remnants of the Chancellor's political and economic credibility. Reeves is now at the centre of a full-blown crisis in relations between Downing Street and Labour MPs. The Chancellor – more than any other member of the Cabinet – is being blamed for the shambles. Some MPs have privately said they 'hate' her. Now the Chancellor's critics within her own party are growing ever louder. Worryingly for Reeves, they include a number of ministers unhappy at her performance. In the increasingly febrile mood at Westminster, even moderate Labour MPs are now saying Starmer should sack her. If she stays, they reason, she will worsen the PM's poll ratings – languishing at an abysmal 46 per cent in the latest YouGov survey. But would Starmer have the guts to ditch his Chancellor barely a year after their landslide general election victory? Absolutely not – and the reason why, I can reveal, is breathtakingly cynical. One senior party figure tells me: 'Number 10 needs her. She is absorbing all the blame for our problems, and therefore diverting it from the PM. 'Whether it's in the rural areas over her decision to bring in inheritance tax for farmers, or with pensioners over winter fuel, it's Rachel's name that comes up on the doorstep every time, not Keir's. 'Keir is an anonymous figure at Parliament. We rarely see him and he's never in the division lobbies, while Rachel is there all the time. She's receiving huge flak from her own colleagues.' But my source also warned fellow Labour MPs: 'Have we learnt nothing from the Tory years? They went into the last election a shattered force and suffered their worst ever defeat.' While few MPs expect Reeves to be sacked or even demoted in the short term, the next big test could be the autumn Budget. Reeves set herself two new fiscal rules in the last Budget: pledging to balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts and to get public debt down as a share of the economy. Another source says: 'The PM may order her to change the rules to avoid tax rises. It could lead to a showdown. If she refuses, she goes. If she agrees to change them, her last scrap of respectability is gone and she will be a lame duck. If taxes go up, it's hard to see how she could limp on for much longer.' After the Budget, Labour faces the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections in May. Reform are expecting to capture Wales, a traditional Labour stronghold. A senior government figure says: 'If the local elections are a disaster, Keir will need to blame someone. There'll be yet another 'reset' and I think he'll throw Rachel under a bus if he hasn't already. He will pledge a new direction with a new Chancellor.' The favourite would be Pat McFadden, the dour Cabinet Office minister. But if Tuesday's vote is dramatically lost – now thought to be unlikely after the rebels won a raft of concessions – Reeves would be in dire trouble, as in fiscal terms the Government would be holed below the waterline. Reeves' own political hero is Gordon Brown. She will no doubt be aware of his infamous quip that there are two types of Chancellor: those who fail and those who get out just in time. A mere 11 months after she entered the Treasury, most Labour MPs – to say nothing of the country at large – have already decided which one of those she is.
The Sun
31-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Clueless Labour's class war against Farage won't stop him… Reform voters care about policies not what school he went to
MEMO to the Labour Party – if you are ever going to stop rampant Reform UK, you will definitely not do it with laughably outdated class warfare. Labour chairman Ellie Reeves dismisses Nigel Farage as 'a privately educated stockbroker and career politician'. 7 7 But with her ham-fisted sneer, Ms Reeves draws unwelcome attention to her own privileged existence. Ellie is an Oxford-educated barrister, the sister of Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the wife of Labour peer Lord Cryer, which makes her Baroness Cryer, and the daughter-in-law of two, er, career politicians. More privilege than you can shake a silver spoon at! Hardly a child of the proletariat, are you, Baroness Cryer? Are you still keeping coal in the bathtub? How are your racing pigeons? See you down the Rat And Trumpet for a game of arrows? Gawd blimey, what a load of nonsense! What a shedload of inverted snobbery. I was educated by the state because there was never another option for the child of a greengrocer and a dinner lady. I do not see my state education as a badge of honour. Who cares if Farage's folks sent him to a private school? The parents of Clement Attlee and Tony Blair also sent their sons to private schools. And Attlee and Blair were both consequential Labour Prime Ministers, arguably the only two this country ever elected. Labour's Baroness Cryer, I respectfully suggest, knows bugger all about the working class of this country. Back in the day, the working class were exhilarated to vote in their millions for Labour's Blair and, more recently, the Conservative Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford). Sure, you can have your doubts about Reform, and how they are going to pay for some of their big promises. Increasing benefits while slashing taxes — can it really work? And Nigel has to explain how Brexit will work in a world where America is an unreliable ally. But where Farage went to school, or earned a crust before politics, should never come into it. Unthinkable even a few months ago, there is now a path opening up that could whisk Nigel Farage all the way to 10 Downing Street, a path that has been built by disillusion with the first Labour Government since May 2010, and the increasing irrelevance of the Tories, who had 14 years to get it right. Keir Starmer's big state-of-the-nation speech on Thursday, his shirt sleeves neatly rolled up, was astonishing. No mention of Kemi! Starmer treated Nigel Farage (and the Reform MPs who could share a minicab) as the effective leader of His Majesty's Opposition, Starmer's true rival for power at the next General Election. Keir predictably rolled out the fact that his father toiled in a factory. No mention of his knighthood or lucrative career as a human rights lawyer. But Starmer got this right — the UK can't afford another Liz Truss. As the reality dawns that Farage could actually form the next government, he will come under increased scrutiny. Reform's policies The nation must know the bill for Reform's policies. But what Labour will not get away with is painting Farage as an unelectable toff. Because the man has the soul of the British working class on speed dial. For example, most ordinary Brits care about climate change. But I reckon that most of them love Farage's promise — in a country responsible for just one per cent of global emissions — to ditch the self-harming insanity of Net Zero. Unfortunately for Sir Keir, Baroness Cryer and all the silver-spoon socialists like them, working people are not snobs. The working class believes, as Ian Brown of the Stone Roses had it, that it's not where you're from that matters — it's where you're at. TOP marks to Tory Robert Jenrick for bravely confronting ticket cheats on London's lawless underground network. Now that's what I call a Justice spokesman. Sabrina knows Name Of The Game AT first, reports that Sabrina Carpenter is in the running to appear in Mamma Mia! 3 seemed a little unlikely. The Espresso singer was born in 1999, a full 25 years after Abba appeared on the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest, singing an impossibly catchy song in adorably Swedish accents. 7 7 Then you learn that Sabrina has named her cats . . . Benny and Bjorn. Back in the Seventies, music snobs like me turned our noses up at Abba, while secretly humming S.O.S and Mamma Mia behind closed doors. But everybody is an Abba fan now. Sabrina's hamsters are probably called Agnetha and Anni-Frid. HARRY TRIPS AGAIN PRINCE HARRY made a surprise 6,400-mile round trip from his home in Montecito, California, to Shanghai, China, to give a speech on – you have to be kidding me – environmentally friendly travel. Flying across the planet to pontificate about saving the planet? The hypocrisy is off the scale. Harry's means of transport from Los Angeles to Shanghai remain unknown. But assuming that the Duke of Sussex did not travel to China in a hand-carved wooden boat, The Times reported that a first class return flight from LA to Shanghai produces more than 6,311kg of greenhouse emissions, while emissions in a private jet could be anywhere from ten to 100 times higher, depending on the aircraft. Which means that Air Miles Harry has a carbon footprint that is much larger than his brain. HIS MAJ TRUMPS DONALD BACK off, Tango chops! King Charles III did not directly criticise the American president when he – the King of Canada! – opened the Canadian Parliament. 7 No need. Just by being in the Canadian Parliament, and with his gentle, moving 'speech from the throne' in English and French, Charles obliterated Trump's casually graceless threats about making Canada the 51st state of the US. As if nothing had changed, the POTUS was still ranting on social media about how Canada would save itself $61billion if they 'become our cherished 51st state'. 'They are considering the offer!' Trump posted. Er, no they are not, Mr President. The Orange oaf's obsession with the deal is derailing his presidency. Because Donald Trump struggles to understand that some things in this world are just not for sale. DOGS OUT TO HELP DON'T bring your work problems home. It will upset your dog. 7 A team of psychologists at Virginia's Radford University report that dogs showed clear signs of stress when their owners complained about problems at work. 'Dogs are highly sensitive animals who can 'catch' the emotions and feelings of humans,' says the results, published in the journal Scientific Reports. 'They experience increases in stress when their owner does.' I would go further. Dogs are so completely attuned to human emotions that they know how you feel, even if they are not your dog. Our dog Stan died exactly a year ago. And every day since, one or two dogs I have never met before catch my eye and veer towards me, raising their faces as if to say: 'May I be of any assistance?' The study in the journal says that a dog's advanced sense of smell means they can sniff out a rise in cortisol – a hormone released when humans are experiencing profound emotions. At first, I thought it was my imagination. But after a year, I know it is real – dogs understand that I am in mourning for my own dog. And what incredible creatures dogs are – they just want to help. SHOVE YOUR EXCUSE WHEN Brigitte Macron shoved her husband Emmanuel in his brioche-hole, the pint-sized president of France recovered well. Taken aback by Brigitte's firm push in the face, Macron realised the entire world was watching. And smiled and waved. It was only when Macron later insisted that he and his wife were 'simply joking' that he began to look ridiculous. Brigitte shoved Macron where his croissant doesn't shine. Why try to spin it any other way?
Telegraph
05-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Taxpayers' money spent on renting constituency offices from Labour
Taxpayers' money is being spent on renting offices from the Labour Party. Twelve Labour MPs including Ellie Reeves, the Labour chairman, have constituency offices in buildings owned by Labour. In total, more than £1.1 million has been spent by the taxpayer on rent for these 12 properties since 2010. Dame Emily Thornberry, the former shadow attorney general, has claimed the most from the taxpayer in that period: £263,983 for her constituency office in Islington, north London, according to Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) filings. Labour Party Nominees Ltd bought the building in 1992 for an undisclosed amount. Ms Reeves claims almost £16,000 a year in expenses for rent on her Lewisham office, which has been owned by the Labour Party since 2007. In most cases, MPs are leasing offices in buildings that the Labour Party owns outright, meaning that the money they claim on expenses is not needed to service a mortgage. The Labour Party has two companies that are listed as the owners of at least 80 properties across the UK. The Telegraph understands that one of these – Labour Party Nominees Ltd – owns a number of MPs' constituency offices, but does not receive the rental income. Instead, the company licences the buildings to constituency Labour parties, organisations made up of Labour Party members, and they receive the rental income from the MPs. MPs also rent from Tory Party Some high-profile Conservative MPs are also renting from their local party, including Kemi Badenoch. The party leader claimed more than £11,000 in rent from the taxpayer for her office in Saffron Walden. The Telegraph understands that an independent valuation was recently carried out. Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, has claimed more than £49,000 since 2015 to pay for an office that is owned by the trustees of the Fareham Conservative Association. MPs are allowed to rent offices from political parties under Parliamentary rules. However, their contracts are subject to a formal valuation of the market rate by the IPSA, which MPs must stick to. When approached by the Telegraph the regulator refused to reveal when it last carried out valuations for these offices. Campaigners branded the practice 'extremely questionable' and called for an overhaul of the Parliamentary rules which allow it. John O'Connell, the chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Whether or not this is in breach of any rules, this is an extremely questionable practice given it essentially funnels taxpayer cash into political parties. 'IPSA should consider new rules which clearly state that spaces should not be rented from political parties.' Numbers involved unclear This landlord relationship between MPs and their parties is often opaque because many parliamentarians do not publish the address of their constituency office, citing security concerns. As a result, it is unclear how many MPs are funnelling taxpayers' money to their local parties. Most of the premises in question are in buildings that are already used as political party offices, and have very prominent signage likely to diminish their value to other potential tenants. Andy Slaughter, the MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, charges the taxpayer £10,875 a year for an office in a Labour Party office building painted red, with a large Labour sign on the outside of the building. Mr Slaughter said he had looked at alternative options for an office and the rent was 'substantially more expensive'. He added that the rent had not increased for a number of years 'and therefore represents a significantly lower cost than market rental'. A Labour Party spokesman said: 'All Labour MPs' constituency offices are rented in full compliance with the rules set out by the independent Parliamentary watchdog, IPSA. The suggestion that the Labour Party is profiting from MPs' rent expenses is categorically incorrect. 'The value of the rent paid by MPs is rightly overseen by IPSA, who ensure that rent does not exceed fair market value through independent valuation of contracts.' A Conservative Party spokesman said: 'This is entirely in keeping with the rules set out by the IPSA, and is all transparently and properly declared.'
