It’s funny, isn’t it, how a certain type of female politician is happy to weaponise identity politics. It happened with Kamala Harris. Madam President-to-be was a “qualified attorney”; respect her or you’re sexist. But for 107 days this apex “billions of stars” lulu failed to make a single argument, while being completely unable to cope with any negative feedback.
Reeves is the same: she can’t listen to the radio and hides copies of the Daily Mail. Is this who we want — someone who’s frightened of open letters from Sarah Vine?
Well done that lass.
Reeves may claim she’s had a difficult route to power, but the truth is — thanks to Margaret Thatcher — she hasn’t. Clever, educated parents, one of the best state schools in the country, thus to Oxford and the Bank of England. Selected as chancellor through luck, not merit — she had little financial experience and none in business.
Sarah Palin and Liz Truss were the wrong sort of wimmins of course.
Politics is generally talent-free. It has been for decades. The greasy pole is ascended by brown nosing. Our own Dear Leader Keith Spanner is just such an example. An incompetent leader and manager, who falls upwards. We’ve all seen it happen many times before.
The fact that the ‘someone useless’ is in this case a lady, just makes it even more fun, because she insists on playing the Gender Card.
The on thing I would say to her is that ISIS “, with nearly 500 brigades of sympathisers extant in the country will do a lot more to women than Rachel Reeves – she may want to target her vitriol elsewhere. Not suggesting Reeves isn’t the worst chancellor in recorded history by a huge margin but she is merely an imbecile – not evil per se.
She’s a thief, a liar and a socialist. So she’s evil. A proper wrong ‘un, as Long says
“Selected as chancellor through luck, not merit”
More through the complete lack of talent in the House of Commons, so having worked in the complaints department of a former building society meant she was vastly more experienced in finance than any of the other Labour MPs?
Does that count as luck or merit?
You may be overlooking Angela’s knowledge of avoiding Capital Gains Tax, evading Stamp Duty (temporarily) and how to use a son’s Trust as an ATM. These will all prove useful when she replaces Reeves.
From the article:
She used the fake numbers to get us to pay more for welfare: that is the reality of this budget. She used all of it — the screaming, the victimhood, the “being a woman” — to distract us from her true mission. She fooled us into thinking she was just an idiot. But she’s a proper wrong ’un, and she screwed us.
This view has merit.
Thanks” I’ve not read her before. I liked “She fooled us into thinking she was just an idiot. But she’s a proper wrong ’un”.
Yes I concur 100% with that observation but would emphasise that she displays arrogance when backed up by her chums but mewling self-pity when actually called to account (not just this week, remember the blatant lies on her CV) .
A thoroughly unpleasant individual, very much like the fish-faced cow.
I liked “the behaviour — to use a framing Reeves would understand — of a mediocre middle-class person of privilege”
I’m astonished there’s writing this fun and sound in the Times; perhaps I should start reading it again?