Rachel Reeves may have lied on her online CV, but her latest career move will be worse for the UK - Ben Habib
Rachel Reeves defends Inheritance tax rise
GB News
Ben Habib is the former Deputy Leader of Reform UK
Don't Miss
Most Read
Trending on GB News
Governments cannot generate wealth. Sure, they must operate crucial aspects of government but these are services, not wealth generators. And even this they do with a large dose of incompetence.
The only creators of wealth are us, the people, and the businesses we establish and operate – otherwise known as the private sector. That I should have to state the obvious is a sad indictment of the United Kingdom’s governance today.
At best, governments can be enablers of the private sector - mostly by leaving us alone. The less they interfere with us, the more successful we are likely to be. Their interference comes in two forms: regulations and taxes.
After 40-odd years of EU membership and at least 30 years of increasing socialism, the UK is one of the most tightly regulated and highly taxed countries in the world.
It should be no surprise that GDP is flat lining and GDP per capita is shrinking – helped on its way by the importation of cheap unskilled labour and benefits scroungers. Yes, a large number are now coming to the UK and are not contributing in any way to our economy. They are just takers.
Reeves’ response: regulate and tax us even more. She wants more of our money to seemingly play her socialist games and, she says, to “fix our public services”.
But the more she puts her knee on our necks the less we will be able to generate and pay into her coffers.
Many of us are losing and will lose jobs (and become a burden on the state), many are going and will go bust, many are leaving and will leave the UK and businesses which may have chosen the UK as a home are going elsewhere.
Every day that passes we see more evidence of this. This is Noddy economics. Yet, every initiative by this Labour government is self evidently damaging to the private sector and therefore the wealth of the country and indeed its own ability to spend money.
The Government is busy ratcheting up regulations via the new Employment Act, speeding up the drive to Net Zero, the rejection of meritocracy in favour of even more progressive discrimination, increasing of taxes on the working class, small businesses, farmers, fossil fuel companies (78 per cent!!) at a time when we are desperate for cheaper energy and so on.
There is no single part of the private sector it has not targeted.
Upon reading this, you might conclude Rachel Reeves, sadly our Chancellor, is incompetent. That is likely.
After all, she is accused of lying on her LinkedIn profile. It's alleged that she was not an economist at the Bank of Scotland; it is claimed she worked in a complaints team in their back office. (Not a good look, to put it mildly, for someone with control of our purse strings)
However, the truth is worse. Her economic policies suggest she harbours an ideological hatred of wealth creators. It matters not that she needs part of their wealth for her socialist programmes.
The richer they became the more cash the Treasury would naturally get. But it seems she would rather see GDP crater than allow the drivers in our economy to do well – even if that means, as it does, that the government’s own programmes will rapidly become unaffordable.
At every level, this government is damaging us. It indulges in the politics of envy, identity and wealth redistribution. Gone is aspiration; welcome dependency.
When Rachel Reeves says she is pro-growth, she is simply wrong. Left to her own devices, GDP will fall, government receipts will fall, it's spending will become unsustainable, Sterling will weaken, we will import inflation, unions will be given inflation-busting wage increases, making inflation even worse, interest rates will rise, but sterling will fall further.
Then there will be a strike from investors on buying UK government bonds. She will drive the UK, cap in hand, to the IMF.
She will deliver 1976 all over again. The truth is, incompetent or not, there is only one plausible motivation for such damaging policies. It is this, and as I have said for months now: Reeves and her colleagues are anti-British.
You may like
