A step towards another IMF bailout: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4w44w42j5o

She really does seem to have no idea - there's rumours that she'll be after our pensions/pension pots: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-15187979/Rachel-Reeves-pensions-Budget-ROS-ALTMANN.html?ico=mol_desktop_money-newtab&molReferrerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fmoney%2Findex.html&_gl=1*i8li0h*_gcl_au*MjE5MTU0MjI4LjE3NjA3Mjg5OTI.*_ga*MjAzNzg0OTA0Ny4xNzYwNzI4OTg2*_ga_C9F47K6NW6*czE3NjA3Mjg5ODUkbzEkZzEkdDE3NjA3Mjg5OTQkajYwJGwwJGgxNTY0MzkyMDk1

I'm starting to contemplate the 'Bank of Matress'

Reeves is as thick as pig excrement and twice as dense. What she understands about growing an economy can be written on the back of a postage stamp in capital letters.

In my opinion, she should be junked PDQ, along with the rest of this cabinet of charlaterns and ne'er do wells.

I'm really not impressed. :) :) :)

The IFS has given Rachel from Accounts a bit of advice. It still means we're going to be lumped with more tax: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2n08n15w2o

[quote="rebbonk"]I always say, "You breed 'em, you house, clothe, and feed 'em."

Basically, don't have what you can't afford. There is no excuse these days, contraception is quite reliable.[/quote]

Yes, I was going to ask what you thought of my rambling , Rebbonk. :o

I always say, "You breed 'em, you house, clothe, and feed 'em."

Basically, don't have what you can't afford. There is no excuse these days, contraception is quite reliable.

I'd be interested to know the statistics of how many couples have had more that two children or more than they can afford since the two child benefit cap came into force 2017.

I feel inclined to agree with the benefit cap limit families to 2 or maybe 3 kids is enough. I think there is an argument to limit payment to two children, or maybe 3, as to my mind in theory , it would prevent poorer off couples having kids they cannot afford , it can certainly stretch their budget, then in turn have to rely on benefits. Feeding, clothing and schooling and of course mortgage, running a car and bills can be very expensive Also if the breadwinner of the family suddenly finds himself/herself out of a job , or been laid off , it leads to another crisis.

[quote][b][size=167]The revolt against Reeves[/size]

As cabinet ministers protest, the Chancellor is trapped in her own straitjacket.
[/b]
Britain is weary of spending cuts. Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, has warned that forces bear the “scar tissue of years of austerity”. Nigel Farage, in his new natalist guise, has called for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. Cabinet ministers in unprotected departments revolt against the prospect of further cuts.

Sources dismiss reports that Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband “stormed out” of a meeting with Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (“It was cordial and it was virtual,” insists one insider). But they do not deny the tensions within government ahead of Rachel Reeves’ Spending Review.

Rayner, tasked with delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament, fears this pledge will be impossible to meet without a significant increase in spending on social housing (funding for the affordable homes programme only lasts until next year). She also wants additional support for local government to prevent further council bankruptcies (the number reliant on “exceptional” support has risen from 18 to 30 over the past year).

Other cabinet ministers yet to settle with Reeves include Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Steve Reed – all lead unprotected departments and have their own unenviable targets. At the election, Labour pledged to provide 13,000 more neighbourhood police officers, to halve knife crime and to halve violence against women and girls. It promised to upgrade five million homes to cut energy bills and reduce emissions. And it vowed to “champion British farming” (post-Brexit subsidies are expected to be slashed). The Spending Review is the moment at which ambition will collide with reality.

The Treasury dismisses any talk of a return to austerity. To Labour critics calling for Reeves to raise taxes or loosen her fiscal rules it points out that the Chancellor has already done both. Earlier this week, Reeves boasted that the latter would enable £113bn of new capital investment in homes, transport and energy.

But the Chancellor faces two self-imposed constraints. First, though she loosened her rules in one area, she tightened them in another (in a bid to maintain market confidence). Rather than balancing the current budget within five years, Reeves has pledged to do so within three years. This is the target that is now necessitating cuts to unprotected departments.

“Capital spend takes time, and day-to-day spending is still massively tight and constrained,” a minister told me. “Interventions that will have an impact on voters in the first four years are off the table, and that’s what’s killing us. Borrowing has gone up but we’re not borrowing to do the things that we want to do – we’re borrowing to fix the mess of the last lot.”[/quote]
Source: [url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/05/the-revolt-against-reeves]New Statesman[/url]