Latest news with #Number11
Scotsman
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
How, one year after defeating Tories, Labour has delivered more of the same
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It hasn't been the happiest of 'birthday' weeks for the government at Westminster. Labour colleagues were not in a celebratory mood on the anniversary of their 'landslide' election win. In Westminster, it wasn't hard to find government parliamentarians griping about their own record whilst in open rebellion. The Welfare Bill debate on Tuesday was, for those of us who still wear the scars, a throwback to the chaos at the height of the Brexit debacle. Ministers were making U-turns at the despatch box just before key votes. It was difficult to keep up, so rapid was the disintegration of the Bill over the course of one afternoon. Potential rebels were unsure what they were voting for at the end of the day. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So feverish was the atmosphere that the Chancellor's tears at Prime Minister's Questions led to a bout of frenzied speculation as to what it all meant. The Conservatives, struggling to find a meaningful role themselves, were quick to jump on the visible upset of Rachel Reeves, in a way that reflected rather worse on them than the incumbent of Number 11. It did, however, tell a story of a government that has lost its way. This week's events were more reminiscent of an administration staggering to the end of its time in office rather than at the peak of its powers. Keir Starmer has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives (Picture: Carl Court) | Getty Images Hard Tory Brexit remains A major challenge is that Labour doesn't know what it's for. Inevitably it has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives. Westminster has levers Holyrood ministers could only dream of to deliver policies, but doesn't use them. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The increasing levels of poverty in the UK, the lack of investment in infrastructure, an outdated parliamentary and electoral system, a hard Tory Brexit that no one seems to want and the UK certainly can't afford – all areas they could have delivered on. A year ago, there was an appetite for change. Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, albeit a shallow one in terms of the vote because of who they weren't. Rather than taking the historic opportunity afforded to them, unfathomably, Labour's message has been one of continuity, the very thing that people had voted against. Continuity was seen in the cuts to the winter fuel payment that hit the most vulnerable, continuity in failing to fix our relationship with the rest of Europe that hampers growth, and continuity in maintaining the Conservatives' failed fiscal rules. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Contrast with Blair and Salmond Labour won power and don't know what to do with it. Compare with previous incoming administrations who knew that people had voted for change. In 1997 on day one as Chancellor, Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent. In Scotland, in the days after the SNP's narrow election win in 2007, Alex Salmond changed the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government, and scrapped bridge tolls amongst a range of other measures. These actions by two distinct administrations told the electorate that not only had the voters' message of change been heard but it was being delivered. These opening acts also told voters something of the governments' plans. Blair's New Labour was determined to be financially prudent and Salmond's administration was delivering a distinctive Scottish Government that would make up its own mind on policy and pursue devolution that diverged from Westminster where the First Minister believed that to be in Scotland's best interest. Agree or disagree, these administrations knew what they were for from the start. Wrong side of poverty issue Even after this disastrous week, there is no sign of improvement. Government sources have briefed that the rebellion over the Welfare Bill will mean that the two-child cap will remain in place. The Child Poverty Action Group said of the latter policy: 'This tax on siblings is the biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former Blair adviser John McTernan remarked, with palpable frustration, that the government's position appeared to be 'you stopped us harming people with disabilities, so we'll hurt children'. This Labour government seems to be on the wrong side of tackling poverty and getting people back to work. Scottish Labour are no better. The day after the rebellion, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about the UK Government's vision for Scotland. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up, not to talk about their hopes and aspirations for their own government, but rather to focus on the Scottish Government. More than once, the chair had to remind Scottish Labour MPs that their job was to scrutinise the UK rather than the Scottish Government. Their focus on Holyrood is something of an unintentional complement to the SNP administration and says much about the lack of imagination or clear mission within the ranks of Scottish Labour MPs. The UK Parliament has powers and responsibilities over Scotland far in excess of that of Holyrood. The fact that Labour MPs don't have much to say about that speaks to a malaise in a party which doesn't know what to do with the power it has attained. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lacking credibility This week Scottish Labour were one of the last holdouts of loyalty to Keir Starmer. The Welfare Bill would have a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament's own efforts to reduce poverty, but few Scottish Labour MPs joined the rebellion. As Labour leaders in Wales, London, Manchester and elsewhere were joining in calls for change to the Bill, Scottish Labour remained silent. Their claims that they wouldn't introduce the changes in Holyrood, that they failed to oppose in Westminster, lack credibility. That's the problem. Labour showed this week that they lack credibility or a plan to end the chaos. One year on, the great change has led to more of the same.
Bloomberg
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Ailbhe Rea: An 11th-Hour Scramble to Save Starmer's Welfare Cuts
Good afternoon from an absolutely sweltering House of Commons, where, at roughly 7pm, Keir Starmer faces a knife-edge vote on his welfare reforms, and an eleventh-hour scramble to avert defeat. 'We all know why this is happening,' one MP said as the debate opened this afternoon. 'This is a rushed attempt to plug the chancellor's fiscal hole. It is driven not by principle, but by panic. The changes were forced through not because they get more people into work, but because someone in Number 11 Downing Street made a mistake.'
Bloomberg
28-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Allegra Stratton: Finding The Real Rachel Reeves
Rachel Reeves may have Aneurin Bevan's 'language of priorities' motto in her mind as she glances at today's newspapers spread on the large coffee table in Number 11, where you can't avoid them — even if you want to. Recently, there has been front page after front page about people after her job, or the one next door. Both Nigel Farage and Angela Rayner have been having a go at back seat driving the economy – neither of them encumbered by having their ideas scored by a phalanx of Treasury officials. Reeves can't raid the net zero budget for £45 billion as Farage says he would, because Treasury analysts would tell her it wouldn't raise that much; and she can't unleash Rayner's tax octopus – eight policies to squeeze the wealthy – without officials raising eyebrows and yet more wealthy people fleeing London.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves's lies are an insult to high-achieving women
In this day and age, does anyone seriously believe a woman cannot attempt to run the economy as competently as a man? That the allegedly fairer sex – against all the evidence that girls are outperforming boys in Stem subjects – is also a little dimmer, too? I ask, because I'm beginning to have my doubts. You see, Labour made quite a fuss over Rachel Reeves's appointment as the country's first female chancellor. Few cared: this isn't the 1950s, we've already had three female PMs, it was a woman who quickly and quietly saved Britain from Covid, many have run large and successful companies. But as Harriet Harman said last year, 'It's sort of shameful that we think we're the party of women and equality... [and] we've never had a woman leader.' With this in mind, nothing could dissuade Keir Starmer from handing Reeves the keys to Number 11, with perhaps a move next door if he decides to hang up his boots. And her qualifications seemed impeccable. 'For a would-be chancellor,' The Guardian gushed last summer, her 'CV could hardly be more perfect.' She was a former HBOS economist, so knew her way around a spreadsheet. She was a former chess champion, always thinking several moves ahead. And she'd just authored a book on great women economists. As we now know, it was bunkum. Her roles at HBOS and the Bank of England were exaggerated. Chunks of her book were plagiarised. We've just discovered that despite claims she had written in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy (ranked seventh in the Ideas/RePEc list), she in fact jointly penned a publication for the European Journal of Political Economy (ranked 124th). Questions have also been raised over her personal financial probity. Then there's the small matter that, in just seven months, Reeves has begun digging our economy's grave. GDP per head has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. Millionaires are fleeing as fast as their luxury yachts can sail them, private schools are closing their doors, businesses are dishing out P45s – and that's before the £25 billion 'jobs tax' (Reeves's words, not mine) kicks in. By appointing someone so ill-equipped for the office, Labour hasn't blazed a trail for other women to follow: it's sent a message that, in virtue-signalling Britain, people are no longer hired on the strength of their character, ability or experience. It's implied that women cannot compete without help, delegitimising the achievements of all those who've made it to the top because they are genuinely excellent. As it happens, the Reeves experience is nothing new. The FTSE100 has a long history of diversity hires for whom the job is not primarily about satisfying customers and shareholders but trumpeting a political ideology. Alison Rose made climate change a 'central pillar' of her leadership at NatWest, oversaw the debanking of Nigel Farage, leaked inaccurate information to the BBC following that scandal, and was forced to resign. Paula Vennells, described by one Post Office employee as 'incomprehensible', presided over the Horizon scandal. Amanda Blanc, CEO of Aviva, once proudly declared that no senior 'non-diverse' hire is made without her specific approval. Nevertheless, we remain fixated with the notion of fair representation and the idea that DEI is beneficial to business, though there is little evidence to support such assertions. A much-quoted McKinsey report, which appeared to show that diversity made companies more profitable, has been robustly challenged. Diversity in and of itself, academics have warned, has no statistically significant relationships to profits, sales or a host of other metrics. Despite this, the Financial Conduct Authority is now considering tighter rules for how firms should treat DEI in order to 'reduce group think and unlock talent'. What this really means is more state involvement in private employment decisions in order to engineer particular social outcomes. But what woman wants a promotion based on her gender rather than attributes? I certainly don't. Perhaps there's a way Starmer might nudge Reeves along whilst avoiding the 'optics' of putting a man in her place. Let Yvette Cooper do the job, with Ed Balls dragged away from breakfast TV to be her chief adviser if need be. She is at least honest, as far as we know – a quality in pitifully short supply on the Labour benches. It has just emerged that the Business Secretary apparently claimed he was a solicitor despite never qualifying. Or – let's be really radical here – Starmer could appoint whoever he considers best suited to the job. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
18-02-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves's lies are an insult to high-achieving women
In this day and age, does anyone seriously believe a woman cannot attempt to run the economy as competently as a man? That the allegedly fairer sex – against all the evidence that girls are outperforming boys in Stem subjects – is also a little dimmer, too? I ask, because I'm beginning to have my doubts. You see, Labour made quite a fuss over Rachel Reeves's appointment as the country's first female chancellor. Few cared: this isn't the 1950s, we've already had three female PMs, it was a woman who quickly and quietly saved Britain from Covid, many have run large and successful companies. But as Harriet Harman said last year, 'It's sort of shameful that we think we're the party of women and equality... [and] we've never had a woman leader.' With this in mind, nothing could dissuade Keir Starmer from handing Reeves the keys to Number 11, with perhaps a move next door if he decides to hang up his boots. And her qualifications seemed impeccable. 'For a would-be chancellor,' The Guardian gushed last summer, her 'CV could hardly be more perfect.' She was a former HBOS economist, so knew her way around a spreadsheet. She was a former chess champion, always thinking several moves ahead. And she'd just authored a book on great women economists. As we now know, it was bunkum. Her roles at HBOS and the Bank of England were exaggerated. Chunks of her book were plagiarised. We've just discovered that despite claims she had written in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy (ranked seventh in the Ideas/RePEc list), she in fact jointly penned a publication for the European Journal of Political Economy (ranked 124th). Questions have also been raised over her personal financial probity. Then there's the small matter that, in just seven months, Reeves has begun digging our economy's grave. GDP per head has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. Millionaires are fleeing as fast as their luxury yachts can sail them, private schools are closing their doors, businesses are dishing out P45s – and that's before the £25 billion 'jobs tax' (Reeves's words, not mine) kicks in. By appointing someone so ill-equipped for the office, Labour hasn't blazed a trail for other women to follow: it's sent a message that, in virtue-signalling Britain, people are no longer hired on the strength of their character, ability or experience. It's implied that women cannot compete without help, delegitimising the achievements of all those who've made it to the top because they are genuinely excellent. As it happens, the Reeves experience is nothing new. The FTSE100 has a long history of diversity hires for whom the job is not primarily about satisfying customers and shareholders but trumpeting a political ideology. Alison Rose made climate change a 'central pillar' of her leadership at NatWest, oversaw the debanking of Nigel Farage, leaked inaccurate information to the BBC following that scandal, and was forced to resign. Paula Vennells, described by one Post Office employee as 'incomprehensible', presided over the Horizon scandal. Amanda Blanc, CEO of Aviva, once proudly declared that no senior 'non-diverse' hire is made without her specific approval. Nevertheless, we remain fixated with the notion of fair representation and the idea that DEI is beneficial to business, though there is little evidence to support such assertions. A much-quoted McKinsey report, which appeared to show that diversity made companies more profitable, has been robustly challenged. Diversity in and of itself, academics have warned, has no statistically significant relationships to profits, sales or a host of other metrics. Despite this, the Financial Conduct Authority is now considering tighter rules for how firms should treat DEI in order to 'reduce group think and unlock talent'. What this really means is more state involvement in private employment decisions in order to engineer particular social outcomes. But what woman wants a promotion based on her gender rather than attributes? I certainly don't. Perhaps there's a way Starmer might nudge Reeves along whilst avoiding the 'optics' of putting a man in her place. Let Yvette Cooper do the job, with Ed Balls dragged away from breakfast TV to be her chief adviser if need be. She is at least honest, as far as we know – a quality in pitifully short supply on the Labour benches. It has just emerged that the Business Secretary apparently claimed he was a solicitor despite never qualifying. Or – let's be really radical here – Starmer could appoint whoever he considers best suited to the job.
