Can someone please explain to me why the Chancellor of the Exchequer still has a job? Let’s not forget it was Keir Starmer who once screamed across the Commons when he was trying to oust Boris over Partygate: “Law makers cannot be law breakers.”
Well, Rachel Reeves is a lawbreaker, so why hasn’t she been sacked? Of course, I wouldn’t expect the woman who stands accused of embellishing her own CV to do the decent thing and resign.
But you’d expect the Prime Minister who promised us all “truth and transparency“ to have a little more respect for both.
But no, slippery Starmer’s supporting his appalling chancellor all the way. Not only has he ruled out an investigation into her behaviour, but he’s also called what she did an “inadvertent failure”.
But how inadvertent is it when we now know she was warned by two separate estate agents that she needed a letting licence to rent out her house, and she ignored them both?
And how can she say she didn’t know about these licences when she’s actually been posting her support of them on social media?
The breach carries a fine of up to £30,000, so has Reeves had one and if not, why not? Because you can bet your sweet life ordinary people who’d done what she’s done would have had one by now - or worse. And whatever she says, ignorance is no defence where the law’s concerned. It wouldn’t work for the rest of us if we tried to pull it as an excuse, and so it shouldn’t work for the Chancellor.
But it’s how Reeves has handled this lettings debacle that stinks and tells you everything you need to know about the morals and principles of the woman in charge of the nation’s finances.
There is a very cynical reason for keeping Rachel Reeves as Chancellor. But it won't save her - Carole Malone | Getty Images
First, she said she knew nothing about needing a licence for the home she’s been illegally renting out. She insisted she hadn’t been made aware of the licencing requirement.
Downing Street even issued a statement to this effect. Then it was revealed she absolutely did know and that she and her husband had had extensive conversations with their lettings agency. which had made clear to them that they needed a licence.
Now it turns out that Reeves and her husband had also approached another estate agent, Knight Frank, about managing the property, and this agency also made clear she needed a licence.
So twice Reeves was told and twice she ignored the instructions, so how in God's name are we supposed to believe a word that comes out of her mouth? It is vital that the country’s Chancellor is trusted. So much rests on their shoulders.
Apart from the fact that she was accused of exaggerating her CV (a charge she strenuously denies - she’s also the woman who told the British people after her last disastrous budget: ”I am not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes for working people.”
Now we’re just three weeks away from another budget from hell, and it’s becoming very clear that’s exactly what she’s going to do. And guess what? She’s even trying to rework the definition of a working person, saying if you earn under £46,000, you’re not what can be classed as a “working person”, which will come as news to all those teachers, train drivers and plumbers and electricians who do earn more than that.
So, the people who’ll be clobbered aren’t the rich but the millions of middle-income earners who are just above the median full-time salary of £39,000.
Reeves’ hypocrisy and her slipperiness are towering. The fact is, if she can’t be trusted to pay £900 for a lettings licence on her own house, how in God’s name can she be trusted with the nation’s finances? The short answer is she can’t.
Thanks to her, our economy is flatlining and our debt is spiralling by the second. We now pay £100B a year just to service our three trillion debt, and there’s no chance of paying it off because she can’t get a grip on public spending.
The Bond Markets hate her. Business has rubbished her, even the Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey has said her National Insurance tax rises are destroying jobs. And on top of all that, half of Labour party members want her gone. As does most of the rest of the country.
And yet Starmer keeps on protecting her. And why? Is he waiting for until she’s delivered another catastrophic budget, and when the dog dirt hits the fan, he’ll say, “It’s not my fault”, and sack her then?
No. 10 has refused to say whether Reeves’s actions – and her change in story – were a breach of the ministerial code. In a statement, the PM’s spokesperson said: ‘The ministerial code makes clear that in certain circumstances, in consultation with the independent adviser, an apology is a sufficient resolution.”
How very lucky for Reeves we have a Prime Minister so willing to bend the rules for members of his Government while stringently imposing the laws of the land on the people who voted for him.
Because all this isn’t just about a letting licence, it’s about the moral rot at the heart of government. It’s about a PM who sailed into Downing Street on a magic carpet of truth and morality, and the minute he got through the front door, he dumped it.
Starmer and his rotten cabinet don’t have a moral compass between them. If this Government had a shred of integrity, decency, and morality, Reeves would have been kicked out last week. Instead, the message Starmer sent out was that “It’s one rule for us and another for you oiks”.
More From GB News