Being a rather slow and ignorant person, I’m struggling to believe the story we’ve been fed about former Labour transport minister Louise Haigh’s admission of fraud. After all, surely if you’ve had your handbag stolen and reported this to the police claiming your work phone was in your handbag and you later find out that your phone was in a drawer in your home, then why would you confess to a charge of fraud? Surely you would just go to the magistrates court, explain your mistake and apologise for not informing the police that your phone had been found in your home?
This suggests to me that there are a few questions to which we deserve answers but such answers we will probably never get. Here are just some of those questions
How many time has this phone been ‘stolen’: Is it true that Louise Haigh has actually reported her work phone from her employer (insurance company Aviva) had been stolen not once but twice? If it was twice, was she given a new work phone after the first time it was stolen? What happened to the original phone?
Delay in reporting the theft: Is it true that Louise Haigh waited 3 to 4 days before reporting the theft? If, yes, why did it take her so long?
Calls made from the ‘stolen’ phone: Did Louise Haigh make phone calls from the ‘stolen’ phone during the time between the alleged theft and her reporting the loss to the police? Did she then make further calls on the ‘stolen’ phone after reporting the theft to the police?
Photo taken after the theft? Did Louise Haigh submit a photo of the ‘stolen’ phone to either the police or to her insurance company (Aviva?) or employer (Aviva?) as proof of the theft? Did the ‘meta data’ from this photo show that the photoi had been taken after the phone had allegedly been ‘stolen’?
Why confess to fraud? Was it the discovery by the police or her insurance company (Aviva?) or her employer (Aviva?) that the photo of the phone had been taken after the phone had been ‘stolen’ which led to suspicions of fraud which were then confirmed by calls made from the phone after it had supposedly been ‘stolen’ which led to the accusation of fraud? Was it the weight of evidence of deliberate fraud which convinced Louise Haigh’s solicitor to recommend she pleaded guilty?
Fired by her employer? Following an investigation at Louise Haigh’s employer, insurance company Aviva, was Louise Haigh fired or ‘let go’ or politely informed her massive talents would be better employed elsewhere or something of that ilk?
What did Starmer know? What new information did Starmer get which made him change his mind about Louise Haigh’s suitability to be a government minister and which led to her resignation? If Starmer believes Louise Haigh is not a suitable person to be in government, why does Starmer believe she should be an MP?
Given that we little people, we worthless plebs, are still paying Louise Haigh’s considerable MP’s salary and expenses and her (£17,000?) pay-off on resigning her ministerial job and given that we and our children will be on the hook to fund her extremely generous, gold-plated, inflation-protected ministerial and MP’s pension, maybe we deserve answers to the above questions? Moreover, maybe Louise Haigh’s constituents could even be asked whether they believe Louise Haigh is actually a fit person to serve as an MP and whether they now want her to continue to represent them in parliament?
But there’s only one certainty in the vague Louise Haigh incident – we will never be told the truth and the flame-haired siren of socialism will continue to luxuriate in a trouble-free, taxpayer-funded life that few of us could ever imagine affording for ourselves.
Laws prohibiting blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the United Kingdom date back to the medieval times as common law and in some special cases as enacted legislation. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2024.
Punishment and enforcement of these laws vary. Blasphemy is punishable by death in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia. Among non-Muslim-majority countries, the harshest blasphemy laws are in Italy, where the maximum penalty is two years in prison.
And now, while pretending to be fighting against all forms of religious intolerance, it seems that granny- and farmer-harmer Starmer is intent on reintroducing blasphemy laws in Britain. Though, of course, we all know what the real intention of Keir’s new blasphemy laws is – to prevent any form of mockery or even criticism of what some nasty cynics see as possibly not the world’s most tolerant religion and its possibly not the most tolerant adherents.
I was going to show a picture here of a few members of that particular faith expressing their views on what should happen to anyone laughing at or criticising their religion. From the little I understand, in two-tier Britain’s two-tier policing system, these gentlemen waving banners explaining what they would do to anyone they consider as criticising or insulting their particular faith is perfectly legal. But were I to show pictures of these gentlemen’s banners, I could possibly attract the police’s attention for supposedly inciting religious hatred or something like that. So I won’t show any pictures. That’s how oppressive censorship works. It makes cowards of most of us. And I guess I’m just one of those cowards.
As a brief relief from the oppressive dystopian hell awaiting us under Starmer, here’s a reminder from the film – Life of Brian – of the times when a religion and its followers could be subjected to humorous criticism.
Imagine the riots and mayhem were anyone to be foolish enough to try to make a film like this about Britain’s fastest growing religion nowadays.
In Chapter 13 of my book – THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – I wrote about “The West’s Economic Suicide”. I don’t think many people really noticed when Britain’s last major aluminium smelter closed in 2012 with the loss of over 500 jobs. And if anyone did notice, few, if any, people seemed to be capable of joining the dots to understand why the smelter closed. The reason for the closure: aluminium smelting is an energy-intensive business and the company could no longer operate given the UK’s ever-increasing energy prices caused by our idiotic politicians’ abandoning cheap reliable fossil fuels and trying (vainly, of course) to replace them with expensive, heavily-subsidised, intermittent and unreliable supposed ‘renewables’ as part of our rulers’ Net Zero fantasies.
However, with some more recent acts of industrial self-harm in order for Britain to meet its ludicrously-unnecessary self-imposed climate goals, a few people are beginning to wake up to the disaster we are inflicting on ourselves.
When we were told that our government was giving the owners of the Port Talbot steelworks about £500m of our money to convert the site from blast furnace to electric arc production with the loss of over 2,000 jobs, our rulers told us that this would assure the continuation of steel production in Britain. What they possibly forgot to mention is that blast furnaces convert iron ore to almost any quality of steel you wish to make. But electric arc can only reprocess scrap metal into just a few types of low-grade steel. So our £500m+ and the loss of 2,000+ jobs would lead to a full manufacturing site employing thousands of people being converted to a ‘Steptoe and Son’ scrap metal recycling plant with rather fewer jobs. The main reason for Port Talbot’s demise – Britain’s ever-increasing energy prices caused by our idiotic politicians’ Net Zero fantasies.
Meanwhile in Scotland, the Grangemouth oil refinery is closing with the loss of about 500 jobs and the site will be converted into just a small import terminal for fuel refined in other countries. The main reason for Grangemouth’s demise – Britain’s ever-increasing energy prices caused by our idiotic politicians’ Net Zero fantasies.
And now we hear that the owner of Vauxhall has announced plans to close its van-making factory in Luton, putting about 1,100 jobs at risk. Stellantis, which also owns brands including Citroen, Peugeot and Fiat, said it would combine its electric van production at its other UK plant in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire. The main reason for the Luton factory’s demise – Britain’s clampdown on internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales in the transition away from cheap reliable ICE cars to limited-range electric milk floats pretending to be cars caused by our idiotic politicians’ Net Zero fantasies.
Over at Ford they have announced plans to cut 4,000 jobs across Europe – including 800 in the UK – as the car industry frets over weak electric vehicle (EV) sales that could see firms fined more missing government targets. Ford said the restructuring aimed to create a “more cost-competitive structure and ensure the long-term sustainability” of the business amid “lower-than-expected demand” for its electric products.
VW are closing several plants in Germany with the loss of thousands of jobs. And car manufacturer Nissan warned that the so-called mandates covering the sale of non-zero-emission cars risked “undermining the business case for manufacturing cars in the UK and the viability of thousands of jobs”
Why can’t our rulers join the dots?
Surely we now have sufficient evidence that even our worse-than-useless rulers can see that they are wilfully dismantling what little remains of our country’s industrial base is an act of economic self-harm not seen since the Trojans gleefully dragged the wooden horse the Greeks had so kindly left them as a tribute to their heroism into their city with rather unexpected and disastrous results?
Meanwhile, our Chinese friends must be laughing their arses off at our stupidity as we de-industrialise and export all our manufacturing jobs to them. In fact, a conspiracy theorist might even be tempted to conclude that the whole supposed Climate Crisis is part of a Chinese Trojan Horse to weaken the West and ensure China’s economic, political and military world domination.
Of course, our benighted rulers – Tories, Labour, LibDems and SNP – tell us that these ‘old-fashioned’ manufacturing jobs we have lost will be quickly replaced by hundreds of thousands of new highly-skilled, well-paid supposedly ‘green’ jobs. Don’t hold your breath.
Our country’s self-destruction would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
Many people are probably being reduced to a state of despair that someone of Rachel ‘the economist’ Reeves’ modest-to-non-existent talents could have become our country’s Chancellor. But remember that Reeves’s predecessor as Shadow Chancellor was the even more/less (delete as appropriate) talented gargoyle-headed Annelise ‘Dobbin’ Dobbs
I suggest this points to a problem with today’s politicians. When most seem to be relatives of existing politicians, their close chums, local councillors or assorted party apparatchiks who have never had a proper job in their lives, it’s rather difficult to find appropriate candidates to fill the great offices of state. After all, what experience or special abilities did Mastermind flop ‘David ‘lamebrain’ Lammy have to mark him out as the most suitable person to be Foreign Secretary?
I rest my case.
Rachel’s Cycle of Economic Doom?
Before the election, Labour promised us they would have a ‘laser-like focus on economic growth’. So how is that going?
That brings us to Rachel Reeves’s budget from hell – a budget more designed to punish anyone who didn’t vote Labour while showering gold on Labour supporters than on actually improving the country’s economy.
To fill her supposed £22bn black hole in the countrys finances, Reeves has planned to increase taxes by £40bn or £45bn or something like that. There’s at least one not minor problem with this: Reeves has already spent or committed to spending the £40bn+ which she expects to get:
£10bn in increased public-sector salaries
£22bn for the useless failing inefficient ‘envy of the world’ NHS
£22bn for Ed ‘Mad’ Miliband’s crazy planet-saving Heath Robinson schemes
£11bn to be given to the world’s most corrupt countries to save them from non-existent anthropogenic climate change
However, despite having already committed or spent the £40bn+ Reeves hasn’t actually got it yet and will never get it. There are two main reasons she’ll never get her hands on the £40bn+:
Changing behaviours: imposing new taxes and increasing existing ones changes people’s behaviour as they try to lower their tax liabilities. For example, people planning to sell assets might delay doing this for 5 years in the hope that Labour will lose the next election. Or else the tax grab has been so badly planned that it might even end up reducing tax paid – for example, after Labour cancelled the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) for 10 million pensioners, several hundred thousand, who previously didn’t claim Pension Credit, might decide to do so to keep their WFP and entitle them to several other costly benefits. And the 20% VAT attack on fee-paying schools may permit some schools to reclaim VAT paid on any capital spending done during the last ten years, but also may cause some to close and may end up causing many parents to send thousands more pupils from fee-paying schools to state schools.
Pushing the economy into recession: Perhaps the greatest danger of Reeves’s budget from hell is that it will probably push the economy into recession as firms stop hiring and even start firing workers. In addition, many care homes will either have to increase their prices possibly pushing some local authorities into bankruptcy or even close thus dumping ever more vulnerable elderly onto the collapsing social care system. And with the economy in recession, the Government’s tax take will inevitably fall.
Another promise to be broken?
So, we have a bunch of ideology-obsessed, capitalism-hating, socialist, intellectual inadequates in government who have promised to spend or even have already spent a massive amount of our money on pointless things like the parasitic public sector and climate change nonsense while not being able to raise that money.
At her recent meeting with the toothless CBI, Chancellor Reeves promised that her ‘tax and tax and spend and spend’ budget from hell would be the last of its kind and that she wouldn’t keep coming back for more and more and more of our money. Hopefully readers now know it’s one of life’s few certainties that everything a politician says they won’t do, they will actually do.
As she fails to raise her £40bn+ to fund her spending plans, Reeves will have to tax even more. That will push the country further into recession further reducing the Government’s tax take. This reduction of tax take will then force the Government to increase taxes yet again further pushing the economy into recession and so on as we enter a Circle of Economic Doom: more taxes = more recession = reduced tax take = more taxes = more recession = reduced tax take = more taxes and so on forever until the country is bankrupt.
Of course, the obvious solution is to reduce public spending: cut 500,00 civil servants; cut public-sector pensions; stop all subsidies for intermittent, expensive and largely useless renewable energy; cut overseas aid to the world’s most corrupt, basket-case countries; intern all illegal migrants in penal colonies till they agree to return to their countries of origin; cut the number of MPs from 650 to 300 at most; change the House of Lords from over 800 often corrupt lifetime spongers to a 100-person senate elected by proportional representation and much more like this.
But Labour will never cut its beloved public sector so it seems we are destined for Reeves’s Cycle of Economic Doom.
Obviously readers will be well aware of the rather uncomfortable questions which have been raised about what work experience our excellent Chancellor, the ‘Right Honourable’ Rachel Reeves, actually had. I have no insight into the truth of what Rachel from Accounts actually did before becoming a revered politician. Hopefully, over the next few months, some people who worked alongside Rachel ‘the economist’ Reeves, will provide some clarity.
So what can I add to this issue? In what might be optimistically called ‘my career’, I worked in almost 100 organisations in 15 countries. As part of and then a leader of an A&D Team (Analysis and Design) my job was to look at how organisations operated, what information they used for decision-making and how organisational effectiveness could be improved.
When you’ve worked in so many organisations in so many different countries, you start to get what the Germans in their melodic language call Fingerspitzengefühl – a feeling for what is really going on. And my Fingerspitzengefühl makes me suspect that Rachel Reeves was politely let go (fired) from the only two proper jobs she has ever had.
Let’s start at her period at the Bank of England (BoE). Our Rachel was there from 2000 to 2006. If Rachel from Accounts had been enormously successful at the BoE, I’ve no doubt that subtle, and possibly even unsubtle, messages would have been conveyed to Rachel that she was highly regarded by her superiors and was destined for greater things. However, if Rachel Reeves was seen as a largerly-useless, lower-level financial analyst with little to no future, the messages would have been rather different. There’s no way Rachel would have been called into a room and an Alan Sugar-like figure would have pointed a finger at her and said: “You’re fired”. That’s not how things are done in a traditional public-sector organisation like the BoE. Instead subtle messages would have reached Rachel that she might be happier applying her considerable talents elsewhere. Moreover, she would have been given to understand that if she went quietly, she would be given an excellent reference.
Next Rachel moved to Halifax/Bank of Scotland (HBOS). She was there from 2006 to 2009. There is some confusion whether Rachel worked at the Bank of Scotland as an economist or whether she actually worked at the Halifax in a rather more menial customer services department as suggested by the excellent Guido Fawkes website:
If I remember correctly, HBOS collapsed in the 2008 banking crisis having loaned rather a lot of money to people who could never pay this money back and Gordon Brown approved for the failed HBOS to be taken over by the Lloyds banking group. I would expect that following the HBOS collapse and Lloyds takeover there was a fair amount of cost-cutting at HBOS – getting rid of people who were not considered as being essential to the bank’s future success. Possibly that coincided with our Rachel’s departure for the more lucrative field of politics as it has been suggested by unkind voices that inordinate numbers of our Rachel’s doctors and dentist appointments while at the Halifax were actually used to further her ‘work’ as a Labour councillor thus laying the groundwork for her move into politics full-time.
Of course, I realise there are many reasons why people change jobs. Career advancement is is just one of those reasons. Nevertheless, looking at Rachel Reeves’s ‘career progression’ from being an economist at the BoE to an as yet unclear role at the Halifax, one might get the feeling that we are not looking at a financial star’s rapid rise to glory. In fact, there’s a whiff of someone who was possibly politely let go by the only two major organisations which have employed her.
Given that Reeves is now wrecking much of the British economy while hosing our money onto her chums in the worthless, skive-from-home, don’t-know-what-work-is, inefficient, incompetent public sector, it’s important we get some clarity on our Rachel’s real talents and experience. Perhaps the excellent, ever-reliable BBC Verify could shed some light on what appears to me to be a confusing situation?
In her Wikipedia pages we read about how Rachel Reeves was a junior chess champion: “In February 1993, in a FIDE officiated Britih Womens Chess Association (BWCA) tournament consisting of 112 competitors between the ages of 12 and 21 Rachel Reeves finished in joint 1st place among the under-14s”
But I’ve gone back to what I believe are the actual results of the 1993 British under-14 chess championship. Here are the original results:
1993 BRITISH UNDER-14 CHAMPIONSHIP
1 Brian KELLY(Belfast) 6½/7; 2 J SAHA (India) 6; 3 A GIBB (Dundee) 5; 4 = Christopher J Beckett, Rohan Churm, Ian A Debbage, M Inglis, Nicholas S Lee, Aiden M Leech 4½; 10= Nathan Alfred, Paul Carpenter, P Hopper, J Lewis, J McMunn, A Mills 4; 16= Philip E Goldstein, Emily Howard, J Mills, R Morgan, John Weatherlake 3½; 21= Simon Armour, Ruth Bates, N Foster, Matthew P George, J Roe 3; 26= Henry A Orna, Rachel J Reeves 2½; 28= P Burke, L Burrows, L Collins, K Ewen, R Lockhart, I Petrie 2; 34 Lucy J Broomfield 1.
According to these, our Rachel actually came in 26th equal. Good heavens. What a shock. Not!
Surprisingly, this story doesn’t seem to have been picked up by the BBC or the rest of the mainstream media. Imagine the maelstrom of abuse from the media if a Tory or, even worse, someone from Reform had been guilty of this ‘minor’ misinformation.
Never let (someone else’s) good ideas be wasted
In October 2023, Reeves’ book The Women Who Made Modern Economics was published.[177]The Guardian said the book contained “something much more like the outlines of a coherent political project … than Labour is sometimes credited with“.[178] But the Financial Times seemed to be less enthusiastic than the always impeccably-accurate Guardian. The Financial Times reported that the book “lifted” content from Wikipedia, The Guardian and other sources, identifying over twenty examples of apparent plagiarism in the book, including entire paragraphs.[179] Reeves told BBC News that some sentences “were not properly referenced” and this would be corrected in future reprints.[180]
Having had a few non-fiction books published and seen how difficult it is to get sales of hopefully serious books, I would politely suggest that Reeves’s book has not exactly been a rip-roaring bestseller and so there are unlikely to be any “future reprints“.
Hopefully you’ve seen the various articles about how our great Chancellor, Rachel ‘Wrecking-ball’ Reeves, has been reported as having changed her cv on the networking website LinkedIn. She now no longer claims to have been working as an economist when she was employed at HBOS (Halifax/Bank of Scotland)
Perhaps we can shed a bit more light on Wrecking-ball Rachel’s supposedly ‘glittering’ career with a tweet on X. I had better not re-post the tweet here as it is certainly not effusively complimentary about our Rachel’s talents and even, as someone has pointed out, it might be libellous if it is untrue. However, for the curious, here’s the link:
Looking at this change in Reeves’s LinkedIn account and the tweet to which I provide the link above, it would seem that Reeves had somehow gone from being an economist at the Bank of England (BoE) – a pretty important job I would have thought – to working in what may have been a minor administration department at HBOS. That could seem to be a very strange career move as generally people who are good at their jobs move upwards with each job change. Yet Reeves’s move, to what appears to be a rather unimportant administrative position at the Halifax, does look as if it was sideways or even downwards rather than shooting effortlessly up the corporate hierarchy.
Of course, this tweet may be complete nonsense put up by someone with a rather large chip on their shoulder. Or it may be the truth. At the moment we have no way of knowing.
So we have two main possible scenarios:
Reeves was hugely successful during her years at the BoE and moved onwards and upwards to become an important and influential contributor to HBOS’s success. Incidentally, HBOS collapsed in October 2008 due to excessive risky lending – a time when our Rachel originally claimed on her LinkedIn account that she was an economist at the bank. I suspect that after the HBOS disaster quite a number of staff were ‘let go’ to save money. Coincidentally, that was the time when our Rachel left her employment at HBOS. I wonder what that tells us?
Reeves didn’t do much at the BoE and left to take up a rather menial administrative job at HBOS. Then, after a few unfortunate episodes concerning confusion/misunderstanding over expenses and time off taken supposedly for dentist and doctor visits but allegedly spent pursuing her political career, was perhaps politely informed (possibly as part of a cost-cutting exercise) that her no doubt considerable talents would be better employed elsewhere.
Here’s the LinkedIn cv of the chap who wrote the piece about Reeves which I link above:
I’m no economist, but this whole situation seems somewhat murky to me. Hopefully some investigative journalist will poke around and shed some light on our Rachel’s real work experience and qualifications to be the country’s Chancellor.
And, in case we forget, in October 2024, the Telegraph reported: “A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Ms Reeves, then shadow work and pensions secretary, was one of 19 MPs to have their cards suspended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) after failing to show spending was genuine. Like her fellow MPs frozen out of their credit, Reeves’s tab was eventually recouped by Ipsa, which refused to pay out valid claims until her debt was settled later that year.”
I posted this blog on Friday. But have added a bit at the end so will leave this up for the weekend
Reeves’s cunning plan?
I wanted to write about robbing wrecker Rachel Reeves’s great new plans to annihilate our pensions industry in order for her to create the impression of economic growth. But I didn’t find much in today’s news reports about Reeves’s Thursday evening Mansion House speech explaining what robber Reeves was intending.
Prior to Thursday evening’s Mansion House speech, we were told that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will lead a shake-up of the pensions market that the government hopes will unlock tens of billions of pounds of investment in business and infrastructure.
In her Mansion House speech on Thursday, Reeves was expected to outline plans to merge council pension schemes into “megafunds” in what she describes as the “biggest pension reform in decades”.
The first step of Reeves’s asault on people’s pension savings would see the UK’s 86 council pension schemes pool their collective assets into a small number of ‘pension megafunds’. Reeves hopes this will lead to £80 billion being invested in energy infrastructure, public services and tech start-ups.
The key words for me are the claim that ‘this will lead to £80 billion being invested in energy infrastructure, public services and tech start-ups‘. Let’s take just two of the above intended targets for Reeves’s great ‘investment’ plans:
Energy infrastructure – that means wasting billions of pensioners’ money on crazed Marxist Ed Miliband’s usless, economically-suicidal wind and solar farms, the hopeless and expensive carbon capture that will never work and other Heath Robinsonian schemes – pumping water uphill, giant wheels, hydrogen etc – to supposedly store electricity when the wind isn’t blowing (or is blowing too strongly) and the sun isn’t shining (most of the time in Britain)
Public services – you don’t invest’ in public services. The definition of ‘invest’ is: “put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit”. With public services, you don’t invest, you just spend. And as we can reliably predict, any more money put into our failing, ludicrously-misnamed ‘public services’ will just be squandered on stuff like diversity nonsense, huge salary increases, employing ever more waste-of-skin bureaucrats and allowing public-sector parasites to do just 2 or 3 days a week (mostly skiving at home) for a 5-days-a-week salary
The benefits?
Reeves has said that public sector pension funds are not currently big enough to generate good returns.
Around 6.7 million local government workers currently have a pension that is based on their length of service and salary – what is known as a defined benefit pension. This is in contrast to most private sector schemes that involve paying into a savings pot each month and hoping te investment returns will provide you with sufficient to live on in your golden years.
The payments these workers make will not change. Instead, the government will set a minimum size requirement for the defined benefits schemes. Larger funds will, in theory, generate greater returns and be more efficient to run, says our trustworthy government. And no doubt, Reeves and her highly-experienced team at the Treasury will decide where the many tens of billions will be ‘invested’.
Wrecking-ball Reeves strikes again
Having taken her fiscal wrecking ball to most businesses with her massive national insurance and business rates tax increases, to farmers with her inheritance tax imposition, to about 10 million pensioners by swiping their winter fuel allowance and to ordinary working people, especially part-time workers, who will see their pay squeezed and many of whom will lose their jobs as their employers struggle to pay Reeves’s ‘job taxes’, it seems that Reeves has realised that she’s destroying the British economy rather than encouraging growth. No problem, by confiscating around 6.7 million local government workers’ pension savings, Reeves can pour tens of billions into Potemkin-style make-work fantasies to give the false impression of GDP growth.
The only amusing aspect of this mass impoverishment of the retirement of 6.7 million people is that they’re public-sector employees and thus mostly Labour-voting. It will be fun to see their reactions when Reeves does a magical disappearing act on their pensions.
However, our amusement will be short-lived. Public-sector pensions are ‘defined benefit’- pensioners are guaranteed a certain amount on retirement. – If Reeves eviscerates them by forcing them to pour money into idiotic government schemes like Miliband’s energy-destruction madness, then one solution Reeves might use to make up the shortfall could be to increase our taxes. However, as she is already bleeding us dry, I suspect that Reeves will use some kind of financial legerdemain to fill the public-sector pension black hole her policies have created.
For example, Reeves could force private-sector pension companies to pour billions into the schemes which have lost public-sector pension money. This would then boost the share prices of the companies, which have lost public-sector pension billions, and create the impression that the public-sector pension funds were adequately funded.
However, this would just be a government-run Ponzi scheme as eventually the private-sector money would dry up, the share prices would collapse and both public-sector and private-sector pension funds would be on the verge of insolvency. But why would Reeves give a toss about her destruction of the UK’s pension industry? By the time that happens, she’ll be happily ensconced in the Lords and have a highly-paid, highly-pensioned taxfree sinecure with some useless, parasitic organisation like the International Money Fund or the World Bank or the World Economic Forum.
Donald Trump doesn’t take office till 20th January 2025. But his landslide election win is already changing the world. Here are just a few bits of good news. We can expect much more to follow. Though you’ll have to look for such Trump good news stories on alternative media – I rather doubt you’ll see any of them on the BBC or any other similar Trump-loathing UK mainstream media.
Iran’s currency collapse
In 2015, at the time of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, the rial was at 32,000 to $1. On July 30, the day that Iran’s reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian was sworn in following the unfortunate helicopter ‘accident’ which sent the previous Iranian President to Paradise and his 72 virgins, the rate was 584,000 to $1.
The rial traded at 703,000 rials to the dollar, traders in Tehran said, breaking through the record before recovering slightly later in the day to 696,150 to $1. It wasn’t immediately clear what caused the rally but Iran’s Central Bank has in the past flooded the market with more hard currencies as an attempt to improve the rate. The slide comes as the rial already faces considerable woes over its sharp slide in value — and as the mood on the streets of Tehran among some darkened.
What a shame! I wonder how the Mad Mullahs will explain to their long-suffering people that the collapse in their currency is the will of the Prophet PBUH
Humbling Hamas
It has been reported that Hamas are now beginning to talk about agreeing to a ceasefire after Trump warned: “We want our hostages back and they better be back before I assume office, or you will be paying a very big price.”
Lawfare can go both ways
The corrupt Democrats have been using lawfare to try to bankrupt Trump and keep him tied up in court cases to prevent him from campaigning. But now that Trump has won the election, he’s fighting back and lawfare can go both ways.
David Craig, on December 7th, 2024
