Reeves comes off worse in encounter with reality
In retrospect, it was probably an act of cruelty to let Rachel Reeves into the TV studios on Thursday morning. For all her desperate desire to project a #GirlBoss persona, even on a good day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives off the general sense of someone who would find herself logistically challenged by a Muller Fruit Corner.
Having been so happy in the cloud cuckoo land of her spring statement, where all was fine and dandy in the UK economy, it would have been kinder to leave her there. Instead, Labour HQ sent her out on the media round.
By the end, you almost felt sorry for her. All that hubristic crowing at the last Budget about being the first-ever female Chancellor of the Exchequer (while crippling entire industries at the flick of a pen). Now she stood in the sad reality of her position; broke, wet and disliked.
Though Reeves was late for her interview with GB News, her appearance is perhaps a sign that knickers are becoming even more twisted in No 10 about the upcoming Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
Like other government ministers, Playmobil Chancellor has sometimes dodged interviews with the channel. So for her first foray into the lions' den, Labour HQ had plonked her in front of a building site. Behind her, throughout the interview, a truck could be heard, reversing very slowly. The metaphor gods were feeling especially uncharitable today.
Downing the pound and passing the buck
'Why do you blame everyone else but refuse to take responsibility yourself?' asked one of the GB News hosts. The Chancellor ignored this question completely and instead answered the one she'd wanted to hear, which was about how awful Liz Truss was.
Her ride on Sky News proved a little easier. At one point she was allowed to launch into an extended monologue on the importance of her ever-changing rules to the nation's fiscal strength. She might as well have said that she was relying on a programme of mass leprechaun capture, torture and gold pot discovery to turbocharge economic growth.
Perhaps the most agonising of the Chancellor's televised clashes with the hard forces of reality occurred on ITV's Good Morning Britain, where Richard Madeley had to lay down the absolute basic rules not just of politics but of existence to Reeves. He explained that accepting free concert tickets worth thousands of pounds looks bad when you're cutting welfare spending at the same time.
The Chancellor blinked a lot before launching into her all too familiar brand of verbal flailing. 'I'm not able like I was in the past just to buy tickets for a concert,' she spluttered. Now on the grounds of pure competence, this felt believable enough. Some of those booking websites are very complicated. Yet as an excuse, it doesn't really wash.
Co-host Kate Garraway stuck the knife in next; of course, she said, Reeves needed security, of course she was entitled to a private life, she was even allowed to have fun. At this point, Reeves stared back blankly, not even a twitch of recognition on her face as to what that might be happening.
Surely, however, continued Garraway, this didn't mean you had to take freebies? Reeves promised not to take any free tickets again; unless, of course, it was related to her job. So, the campaign starts here, let's crowdfund a ticket for the Chancellor's travel back to the real world.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone
Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall mandarin saying that 'the government has still not made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create' (Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set, 12 June). He has a point, not wholly answered by Rachel Reeves. It's the vision thing, and the ability to communicate it. It's about describing what Labour is for, in a general sense, beyond a list of policy deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. 'Securonomics' is interesting, but has no public resonance. If people are now unsure what Labour stands for, it is because the task of ideological self-definition has been neglected. This is unlike 1997, which was preceded by a process of rethinking that produced New Labour and the 'third way'. Something similar is needed now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Britain to draw on, including RH Tawney's argument for equal access to what he called 'the means of civilisation' as the basis for a common culture. Pragmatism is valuable, but it is not enough. An argument should be constructed around the three pillars of security, opportunity and community that would pull together all that the government is trying to do, and the kind of Britain it wants to create. And in a way that people might WrightLabour MP, 1992-2010 I agree with Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah that the focus on investment alone will not work (Has Rachel Reeves made the right choices? Our panel responds to the spending review, 11 June). New public investments are pointless if the operation and maintenance of what already exists isn't adequately funded. After years of austerity, the quickest and surest way to raise GDP and improve public services is to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to relieve the financial pressure on those delivering services, especially our severely cash-strapped local authorities. This will deliver more broad-based and higher economic growth quickly, in contrast to the central allocation of investment funds to mega-projects that will take decades to deliver results. Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, well maintained roads and pleasant amenities. Properly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investment by delivering that. Unfortunately, they are instead expected to implement an expensive and disruptive reorganisation and find the money to pay higher minimum wages and national insurance while receiving a settlement that implies a real-terms cut in funding. Labour needs to think FosterChelmsford According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS has been 'protected' and will receive 'a 3% rise in its budget' (Spending review 2025: who are the winners and losers?, 11 June). But will it in practice? In a recent meeting with the chief executive of the Nottingham University hospitals trust, he told us that he had been instructed to make £97m of cuts in this financial year. This would mean leading to the loss of about 750 jobs and the closure of some wards. Further, these massive cuts are the trust's contribution to the even bigger ones imposed on the integrated care board for our county: a £280m reduction in the provision for all local health services. So, which is it really, protection and a 3% rise, or enormous cuts?Mike ScottChair, Nottingham & Notts Keep Our NHS Public Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Three ways latest Middle East crisis could make life more expensive in the UK
One of the big lessons from Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was how a war hundreds of miles away can have an impact on daily life in the UK. As the price of a barrel of oil shot up, so did our energy bills, and the cost-of-living crisis that was already hitting households hard was exacerbated. It now appears that Iran and Israel are on the path towards a full-scale regional war, with neither country paying much attention to international calls for calm heads. As death tolls rise and destruction spreads, many Brits will be concerned about where it's all going to end – and wonder if we're likely to see a repeat of three years ago. Asked if the government could step in to pay steep energy bills, as the Conservatives did in 2022, Chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC: 'I'm not taking anything off the table.' However, she cautioned: 'We're not anywhere near that stage at the moment – indeed, in July, average energy bills are going to come down by about £100 a year.' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Unsurprisingly, events in the Middle East – one of the world's top oil producing regions – have an impact on the price of oil. Following Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites on Friday, the cost of a price of a barrel of oil jumped sharply. But there's a risk the knock-on effects for Brits are much more broad. The increase in energy prices largely resulting from Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was so significant, the government decided to step in and offer an 'energy price guarantee'. If it had not, the price cap for bills could have been pushed north of £4,000 for the typical household. The invasion pushed oil prices to almost $130 a barrel, meaning costs to suppliers soared, and that was passed down to customers. After an initial jump of 10% after Israel's first strikes on Friday, the cost of a barrel of oil has dropped back to $75 – lower than it was in January. But the big question is whether this conflict will continue for more than a few days or a couple of weeks. That could result in higher prices on a more sustained level, which could feed through to bills. The Bank of England's base interest rate has a direct impact on households across the country, as it is widely used to set the interest rate on mortgages. It's also used by the Bank to try and push down inflation when it gets a bit too high – when the interest rate is increased, people spend less in the economy, which brings down inflation. Since inflation in the UK has fallen from its extreme high in 2022, the Bank has steadily decreased its interest rate over the past year, easing the pressure on people with a mortgage to pay. But high energy prices mean items in shops get more expensive, and if they become more expensive than they were a year ago – well, that's the definition of inflation. Dr Muhammad Ali Nasir, an Associate Professor in Economics at the University of Leeds, explained the potential impact. He told Metro: 'If the increase in energy prices causes another round of sharp increase in inflation, the central bank could change the direction of their policy and start to increase the interest rates again, causing more pain to the household and firms in terms of their borrowing costs.' A sustained increase in energy prices would be enough to increase the cost of a weekly shop in the UK on its own. But that's not the only way the conflict between Israel and Iran could have an impact. There have been concerns Iran could try to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital supply line for global oil as it links the oil fields of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and wider ocean. But Dr Nasir suggested events could lead Iran's Houthi allies to step up their attacks on ships in the Red Sea, which leads to the Suez Canal. He said: 'This could be a massive shock to global trade which is already suffering due to the [US-China] trade war. On top of that, the economist said there is a 'sharp increase in the uncertainty around the economic and trade policy due to the conflict' as the world wonders what will happen next. 'Overall, this conflict is the last thing the global economy wants at the moment,' he said, before adding: 'Of course, loss of human life is an even bigger issue.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: All 9 countries on the UK Foreign Office 'no go' travel list MORE: Is it safe to travel to Cyprus? Latest Foreign Office tourist advice after Israel strikes Iran MORE: UK advises against all travel to Israel after conflict with Iran escalates
