Rachel Reeves making ‘even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss, says Kemi Badenoch
The Tory leader hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for their economic decisions as she drew a critical comparison to her predecessor at the top of the Conservative Party.
'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes,' Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph.
'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.'
Short-lived Conservative prime minister Ms Truss's mini-budget spooked the financial markets in 2022 and led to a spike in mortgage rates.
'As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets,' Mrs Badenoch added.
'Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases.
'Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other.'
The Chancellor earlier admitted Labour had 'disappointed' people while in Government, but said that the Government had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing.
She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular.
Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk Fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed.
'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change.
'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.'
Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north-east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry.
At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector.
'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said.
Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'.
'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes.
'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it.
'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.'
Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
A ferry link between Scotland and France could be one step closer
A ferry linking Scotland to Europe could be one step closer to reality after a key border obstacle may be resolved. Ferry operator DFDS is planning on launching a service between the town of Rosyth in Fife, Scotland, and Dunkirk in France, as early as spring 2026, allowing for both passengers and freight to be transported between the countries. The route is nicknamed 'Project Brave', and was first proposed in 2022. If instated, the journey could take up to 20 hours, making it among the longest in Europe. One of the main barriers to the project was the need for certain goods to be processed at a border control post. Building a new facility at Rosyth was deemed expensive and unnecessary. DFDS proposed using the existing border control post at Grangemouth, in Scotland, instead, however local politicians say a new UK-EU deal could mean that checks at the posts would no longer be needed. In May, prime minister Keir Starmer confirmed a new agreement with the European Union, which means food and drink can be more easily imported and exported 'by reducing the red tape'. Goods are expected to flow more freely as some routine checks on animal and plant products will be removed. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU to determine specific requirements. Scottish MP Graeme Downie said this week that the new deal could bypass the need for border control posts, according to the Dunfermline Press, but temporary use of Grangemouth will be required for the ferry to launch by spring 2026. 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the kingdom of Fife," he said. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality.' Secretary of state for Scotland, Ian Murray, has written to Steve Reed, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, detailing how the ferry service could launch without the new border control point, the local paper reported. He asked that for an 'urgent' amendment to the current model, and thanked Mr Murray for his support in finding a temporary workaround. '[The] efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year,' he said.
