| Oh dear not you as well Rachel 00:02 - Oct 30 with 6851 views | onceablue |
Another scandal involving this Labour government
|  | | |  |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 05:20 - Oct 31 with 844 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 23:32 - Oct 30 by reusersfreekicks |
Really! Think Boris and his chums did enough outrageous stuff that somethibg like this wouldn't touch the sides. Same for Farage and his hotch potch of quasi racists |
There’s barely a whisper in the media cycle/national conversation about one of Farage’s former lieutenants pleading guilty for spying for a foreign state we’re in a proxy war with, so I’m not so sure about that. [Post edited 31 Oct 2025 6:02]
|  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:43 - Oct 31 with 750 views | BloomBlue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 05:20 - Oct 31 by Swansea_Blue |
There’s barely a whisper in the media cycle/national conversation about one of Farage’s former lieutenants pleading guilty for spying for a foreign state we’re in a proxy war with, so I’m not so sure about that. [Post edited 31 Oct 2025 6:02]
|
To be fair Reeves is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in two weeks she'll be presenting a budget that will impact the entire country.
On Wednesday she said neither her or her husband knew they required the licence. 24 hours later, she said, ooops we found these old emails. You would assume anyone with any sense would have thought before I write to the PM etc, let's double-check everything so I/Husband have all the details first - but she didn't.
What's going to happen at the budget if she's that lackadaisical with her own personal issues and checking details? Ultimately its as much her responsibility as her husband's.
Bit like my friend who was stopped by the police as the car he was driving wasn't insured, he explained his wife sorts that out. The police said tough, the car is registered in your name and you're driving it, and kindly added 3 penalty points to his license. Even though it was a simple process error and nobody had been hurt.
As I said early in this chain, I think it's a simple process overlook, but in the bigger context it looks terrible, especially the sudden discovery of emails. |  | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:46 - Oct 31 with 745 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:43 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
To be fair Reeves is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in two weeks she'll be presenting a budget that will impact the entire country.
On Wednesday she said neither her or her husband knew they required the licence. 24 hours later, she said, ooops we found these old emails. You would assume anyone with any sense would have thought before I write to the PM etc, let's double-check everything so I/Husband have all the details first - but she didn't.
What's going to happen at the budget if she's that lackadaisical with her own personal issues and checking details? Ultimately its as much her responsibility as her husband's.
Bit like my friend who was stopped by the police as the car he was driving wasn't insured, he explained his wife sorts that out. The police said tough, the car is registered in your name and you're driving it, and kindly added 3 penalty points to his license. Even though it was a simple process error and nobody had been hurt.
As I said early in this chain, I think it's a simple process overlook, but in the bigger context it looks terrible, especially the sudden discovery of emails. |
It only looks terrible to someone looking to score points. Normal humans look at it and can fully understand how it happened, and have inevitably had similar moments themselves. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:50 - Oct 31 with 741 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:43 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
To be fair Reeves is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in two weeks she'll be presenting a budget that will impact the entire country.
On Wednesday she said neither her or her husband knew they required the licence. 24 hours later, she said, ooops we found these old emails. You would assume anyone with any sense would have thought before I write to the PM etc, let's double-check everything so I/Husband have all the details first - but she didn't.
What's going to happen at the budget if she's that lackadaisical with her own personal issues and checking details? Ultimately its as much her responsibility as her husband's.
Bit like my friend who was stopped by the police as the car he was driving wasn't insured, he explained his wife sorts that out. The police said tough, the car is registered in your name and you're driving it, and kindly added 3 penalty points to his license. Even though it was a simple process error and nobody had been hurt.
As I said early in this chain, I think it's a simple process overlook, but in the bigger context it looks terrible, especially the sudden discovery of emails. |
Yes, they’re at best a little bit useless. I suppose it’s newsworthy but just doesn’t seem proportionate to the ‘crime’. There’s probably plenty of criticism that could be levelled at her about her record instead. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:55 - Oct 31 with 728 views | BloomBlue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:46 - Oct 31 by redrickstuhaart |
It only looks terrible to someone looking to score points. Normal humans look at it and can fully understand how it happened, and have inevitably had similar moments themselves. |
Agree, but that's politics isnt it. People expect higher standards.
Hopefully like anyone she'll receive a fine and be treated the same. Like my mate who got 3 penalty points for forgetting his insurance. | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 09:01 - Oct 31 with 709 views | Herbivore |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:55 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
Agree, but that's politics isnt it. People expect higher standards.
Hopefully like anyone she'll receive a fine and be treated the same. Like my mate who got 3 penalty points for forgetting his insurance. |
Southwark have said they only issue fines to individuals or agents who fail to get a licence within 21 days of receiving a warning. If that applies in this case then I'm sure she'll be fined. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 09:29 - Oct 31 with 690 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:55 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
Agree, but that's politics isnt it. People expect higher standards.
Hopefully like anyone she'll receive a fine and be treated the same. Like my mate who got 3 penalty points for forgetting his insurance. |
If she does get a fine, the agents will doubtless end up paying it.
They took on the responsibility. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 09:35 - Oct 31 with 676 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:55 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
Agree, but that's politics isnt it. People expect higher standards.
Hopefully like anyone she'll receive a fine and be treated the same. Like my mate who got 3 penalty points for forgetting his insurance. |
SKS sound rather pissed off. The ethics advisor cleared her without being in possession of the full facts. Not a good look even if the non license is pretty trivial.
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:40 - Oct 31 with 617 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 09:35 - Oct 31 by GlasgowBlue |
SKS sound rather pissed off. The ethics advisor cleared her without being in possession of the full facts. Not a good look even if the non license is pretty trivial.
|
Reading that made me realise that Starmer is as weak as Cameron was.
He will regret being indecisive, especially at such a crucial time with budget just around the corner.
It would do less harm to the economy, and his own standing, if he got rid as quickly as possible.
He won’t of course because he is a spineless ditherer. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:42 - Oct 31 with 608 views | Herbivore |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:40 - Oct 31 by Pinewoodblue |
Reading that made me realise that Starmer is as weak as Cameron was.
He will regret being indecisive, especially at such a crucial time with budget just around the corner.
It would do less harm to the economy, and his own standing, if he got rid as quickly as possible.
He won’t of course because he is a spineless ditherer. |
This is patently not a sacking offence though. I don't think she's much use as chancellor and there are valid reasons to get rid, but this isn't one of them. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:44 - Oct 31 with 611 views | vapour_trail |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:46 - Oct 31 by redrickstuhaart |
It only looks terrible to someone looking to score points. Normal humans look at it and can fully understand how it happened, and have inevitably had similar moments themselves. |
Disagree.
In opposition they stated they would be whiter than white and get rid of all of the corruption we had to put up with from the last lot.
This is nowhere near that benchmark, but it’s a very poor look from the chancellor, and in my view, it’s not really ok. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:49 - Oct 31 with 589 views | Tonytown |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:40 - Oct 31 by Pinewoodblue |
Reading that made me realise that Starmer is as weak as Cameron was.
He will regret being indecisive, especially at such a crucial time with budget just around the corner.
It would do less harm to the economy, and his own standing, if he got rid as quickly as possible.
He won’t of course because he is a spineless ditherer. |
You are Kemi Badenoch and I claim my £5 | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:51 - Oct 31 with 569 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:46 - Oct 31 by redrickstuhaart |
It only looks terrible to someone looking to score points. Normal humans look at it and can fully understand how it happened, and have inevitably had similar moments themselves. |
Personally, I struggle to understand how a professional couple (her husband is a senior civil servant) couldn't between them remember that they had been told a licence was needed.
These were the words in her first letter.
"Regrettably, we were not aware that a licence was necessary, and so we did not obtain the licence before letting the property out."
So whilst not a resigning matter, it does seem a little incompetent to me. [Post edited 31 Oct 2025 11:56]
|  | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:54 - Oct 31 with 551 views | Tonytown |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:44 - Oct 31 by vapour_trail |
Disagree.
In opposition they stated they would be whiter than white and get rid of all of the corruption we had to put up with from the last lot.
This is nowhere near that benchmark, but it’s a very poor look from the chancellor, and in my view, it’s not really ok. |
Did they say that. Can you show me where?
They have been very poor since the election, but they are a million miles better than the Tories.
You also seem to ignore the fact that 80% of the media are right leaning and are out for them in a way that they weren’t under the last government.
The Tory corruption stories such as Jenrick illegally approving a development to save a Tory party donor £50m received some press, but nowhere near as much as Rayners recent tax problem. Why is that? | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:59 - Oct 31 with 542 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:42 - Oct 31 by Herbivore |
This is patently not a sacking offence though. I don't think she's much use as chancellor and there are valid reasons to get rid, but this isn't one of them. |
Her lack of integrity, and the importance of the role she has in government make it crucial that Starmer, for once, acts decisively.
The wording of Starmer)s letter to her is worrying, there seems more than a hint that she cannot be trusted.
Market response to the budget could be catastrophic. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:03 - Oct 31 with 526 views | Herbivore |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:59 - Oct 31 by Pinewoodblue |
Her lack of integrity, and the importance of the role she has in government make it crucial that Starmer, for once, acts decisively.
The wording of Starmer)s letter to her is worrying, there seems more than a hint that she cannot be trusted.
Market response to the budget could be catastrophic. |
Lack of integrity? That's rather a strong take on the basis of what's known. She hasn't breached the ministerial code so on what basis would he sack her? And if something like this is the threshold, the Tories wouldn't have had enough MPs fit to form a cabinet in their last 5 years in charge. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:06 - Oct 31 with 516 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:59 - Oct 31 by Pinewoodblue |
Her lack of integrity, and the importance of the role she has in government make it crucial that Starmer, for once, acts decisively.
The wording of Starmer)s letter to her is worrying, there seems more than a hint that she cannot be trusted.
Market response to the budget could be catastrophic. |
What lack of integrity? Absolutely no suggestion of impropriety here. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:07 - Oct 31 with 509 views | vapour_trail |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:54 - Oct 31 by Tonytown |
Did they say that. Can you show me where?
They have been very poor since the election, but they are a million miles better than the Tories.
You also seem to ignore the fact that 80% of the media are right leaning and are out for them in a way that they weren’t under the last government.
The Tory corruption stories such as Jenrick illegally approving a development to save a Tory party donor £50m received some press, but nowhere near as much as Rayners recent tax problem. Why is that? |
Ok not his words but that’s the essence.
https://www.civilserviceworld.
I’m not ignoring anything you’ve laid out, I broadly agree with you.
But as I said this is not a good look for reeves, and in my view, it’s not ok.
Other views are available. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:11 - Oct 31 with 492 views | glasso |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:52 - Oct 30 by onceablue |
You don’t get it do you
She is the person in charge of the Country’s finances making decisions that will affect everyone on a daily basis and she doesn’t realise she needs a bit of paper.
Details of the licence are on the Council’s website.
She has proven she is not fit to run the Country’s finances if she doesn’t know basic regulations like this one. |
LOL to be honest it's quite nice seeing you lot suddenly care about scandal in the Government. It's an emotion that's been missing for about 14 years so I'm glad to see we've finally found our moral compass. | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:22 - Oct 31 with 471 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:03 - Oct 31 by Herbivore |
Lack of integrity? That's rather a strong take on the basis of what's known. She hasn't breached the ministerial code so on what basis would he sack her? And if something like this is the threshold, the Tories wouldn't have had enough MPs fit to form a cabinet in their last 5 years in charge. |
It's nowhere near a sackable offence. But it's just a steady drip of incompetence and the perception that something is dodgy about Labour cabinet ministers business affairs, following on from Angela Rayner's underpayment of stamp duty and the anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq resigning over allegations of corruption.
Also, but the Tories is not a defence. No one is sticking up for the tories record on corruption on this thread so it's irrelevant whataboutery. The tories won't be a viable alternative government next time around and are pretty much an irrelevance.
Speaking of incompetence, this is a perfect example.
| |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:32 - Oct 31 with 443 views | Herbivore |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:22 - Oct 31 by GlasgowBlue |
It's nowhere near a sackable offence. But it's just a steady drip of incompetence and the perception that something is dodgy about Labour cabinet ministers business affairs, following on from Angela Rayner's underpayment of stamp duty and the anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq resigning over allegations of corruption.
Also, but the Tories is not a defence. No one is sticking up for the tories record on corruption on this thread so it's irrelevant whataboutery. The tories won't be a viable alternative government next time around and are pretty much an irrelevance.
Speaking of incompetence, this is a perfect example.
|
The Tories formed the previous government so it's a relevant comparison to consider what constituted a sacking/resigning matter on their watch when some people are calling for her to be sacked for this. Essentially we agree that it's not close to a sackable offence but it is a bad look and shows a lack of competence. A lack of competence in key areas has been a hallmark of successive governments now, including this one. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:37 - Oct 31 with 437 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 12:22 - Oct 31 by GlasgowBlue |
It's nowhere near a sackable offence. But it's just a steady drip of incompetence and the perception that something is dodgy about Labour cabinet ministers business affairs, following on from Angela Rayner's underpayment of stamp duty and the anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq resigning over allegations of corruption.
Also, but the Tories is not a defence. No one is sticking up for the tories record on corruption on this thread so it's irrelevant whataboutery. The tories won't be a viable alternative government next time around and are pretty much an irrelevance.
Speaking of incompetence, this is a perfect example.
|
No one is sticking up for the tories record on corruption on this thread but the OP never called them out across the last 14 years... so sorry, it is indeed relevant. I'm not surprised you'd want to forget about it though. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 13:07 - Oct 31 with 416 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 09:35 - Oct 31 by GlasgowBlue |
SKS sound rather pissed off. The ethics advisor cleared her without being in possession of the full facts. Not a good look even if the non license is pretty trivial.
|
You don’t have to look back too far to unearth other examples of her lack of integrity.
Earlier this year her integrity was questioned concerning free tickets to concerts and accepting large sums of money from donor’s to be spent on clothes.
Around the same time problems came to light over a misleading ( fake ) CV.
Before that suggestions she had overstated the role she held at Bank of England.
She doesn’t seem to appreciate that you csn delegate a task to someone to undertake on your behalf but you retain full responsibility.
We have a government elected with the intention to be whiter than white, to not follow in the footsteps of the rabble that governed before them.
We all deserve a lot more than the government is prepared to offer as far as integrity goes. | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:13 - Oct 31 with 364 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 11:44 - Oct 31 by vapour_trail |
Disagree.
In opposition they stated they would be whiter than white and get rid of all of the corruption we had to put up with from the last lot.
This is nowhere near that benchmark, but it’s a very poor look from the chancellor, and in my view, it’s not really ok. |
Are you seriously comparing this to actual corruption?
This is the equivalent of speeding, something I would guess £10m do every single day. It's such a minor thing, she's been reprimanded, will probably have to pay some sort of fine and will get the licence. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:14 - Oct 31 with 364 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 13:07 - Oct 31 by Pinewoodblue |
You don’t have to look back too far to unearth other examples of her lack of integrity.
Earlier this year her integrity was questioned concerning free tickets to concerts and accepting large sums of money from donor’s to be spent on clothes.
Around the same time problems came to light over a misleading ( fake ) CV.
Before that suggestions she had overstated the role she held at Bank of England.
She doesn’t seem to appreciate that you csn delegate a task to someone to undertake on your behalf but you retain full responsibility.
We have a government elected with the intention to be whiter than white, to not follow in the footsteps of the rabble that governed before them.
We all deserve a lot more than the government is prepared to offer as far as integrity goes. |
"Other examples"
Again, the innuendo and suggestion that this incident involves impropriety.
There is no suggestion of that whatsoever.
Please stop doing it.
Integrity is putting your hands up when a genuine oversight ocurs and dealign with it immediately and properly. Integrity is not knowingly or intentionally doing things which are dishonest or unfair. Integrity is not being utterly perfect and never making a human error. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
