Rachel Reeves forced into humiliating correction after misleading MPs and peers with false figure

CP

Rachel Reeves’ already battered credibility has taken another serious hit after the Treasury was forced to quietly correct the parliamentary record, again, following a series of bungled statements by the Chancellor on unemployment and her flagship pension reforms.

Hansard, the official transcript of Parliament, has been amended after Ms Reeves repeatedly got her figures wrong, raising yet more doubts about her much-vaunted reputation for “seriousness” with the nation’s finances.

In one glaring mistake, the Chancellor told MPs that the £425bn Local Government Pension Scheme was managed by “96 different administering authorities” and would be consolidated into “eight pools” under her reforms. The Treasury was later compelled to admit the true figures: there are 86 authorities, set to be reduced to six pools.

Nor did Ms Reeves fare any better in front of the Lords’ economic affairs committee. There, she claimed Britain had “20pc of people of working age who are economically inactive and an unemployment rate of just over 4pc.” Yet the latest Office for National Statistics release puts inactivity at 21pc and unemployment at 4.7pc.

The Treasury’s corrections, first reported by the Mail on Sunday, are only the latest in a pattern of slip-ups. Earlier this year, Ms Reeves had to retract an overblown claim about wage growth, having wrongly declared that pay had been rising at its fastest pace since Labour came to power. In fact, the increase was merely the fastest in three years.

The picture is becoming clear: a Chancellor with a shaky grip on detail, fumbling her way through briefings and statistics at the very moment she is preparing a Budget where she could demand as much as £50bn in new taxes.

Andrew Griffith, the Shadow Business Secretary, was blunt: “When she’s writing such big cheques with taxpayers’ money, it’s no time to be loose with your numbers.”

With wealth creators and top taxpayers fleeing the country, and businesses shutting their doors at record pace, economists warn that the Chancellor’s policies have shattered confidence and choked off investment. Now, with the Budget fast approaching, the pressing question is whether Rachel Reeves has either the grip or the competence to steady an economy already on the brink.

And this is not the first time her credibility has been dented. Only months ago, Ms Reeves was caught exaggerating her CV, wrongly claiming to have worked as an economist at the Bank of Scotland and overstating her tenure at the Bank of England.

For a politician who has tried to pitch herself as a steady hand on the tiller, the catalogue of errors, corrections, and lies are becoming hard to ignore. The Treasury itself has now had to act as fact-checker in chief, cleaning up behind the Chancellor’s repeated gaffes.

When Britain faces one of the most challenging fiscal outlooks in a generation, the country can ill afford a Chancellor who can’t get the basics right.

Worth reading in full at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/08/17/reeves-forced-correct-parliamentary-record-figures-wrong/

---

This article (Rachel Reeves forced into humiliating correction after misleading MPs and peers with false figures) was published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP

Bravo Reeves!

How to make the Inheritance Tax hurt the Online Right

J’ACCUSE

Democracy is the rule of morons. In a Democracy there are one group of morons called ‘the left-wing’ who believe random foreigners deserve free houses and money because of pieces of paper saying they have ‘rights’ to it; they are opposed by the other group of morons, called ‘the right-wing’ who believe random family members deserve free houses and money because of pieces of paper saying they have ‘rights’ to it. This is an example of ‘Djinnbrain’ common to primitive cultures like Anglo-Saxons. Whereas advanced, warfighting, industrial powerhouses like Russia and China understand the state is a monopoly of violence and so, by definition, all ‘rights’ are either held by sovereigns or are simply utility-justified privileges, the Anglo thinks that the world is haunted by various spirits and ghosts who will wreck bad jujuju magic unless people are given stuff for free.

The inheritance tax is necessary because without it there is no Meritocracy. Meritocracy is the only system of government capable of reconciling human sociability with human reason. Anything else is a system of brigandage and, as such, war, rebellion, crime and sedition will always be rational under it. Until we reach Meritocracy, the history of mankind can only be a futile, vegan, charnel-house of mass slaughter without the laughter and the screeching homilies of false prophets. The establishment of Meritocracy is the beginning of the history of the human species and all who stand in its way are enemies of humanity. O how we shall torment them! How we shall eat their livers!

We do not denounce all rights. Man has a right to everything he earns by his free activity. If I have the ability to defy an ordinance without punishment, I can be said to have a natural right to it, suicide, for example, is held to be the oldest natural right of every man. The prohibition on suicide is a contradiction in terms. Even the most thoroughgoing Weberian must admit the state’s monopoly on violence cannot take this away. From this, there is a right, however tenuous, of people to own their own bodies.

The ‘right’ of inheritance is clearly not a natural right. I have absolutely no means, as a decomposing corpse, of transferring my property to a desired heir without magic pieces of paper. Absolutely nothing will happen if the state confiscates this wealth. The Right of Inheritance is thus derived from society and not from the individual, it belongs to the world of custom, it is a spook, a social construct. Inherited wealth has not been ‘taxed twice’, the income tax applies to the income of an individual, inheritances are not income, nobody has worked for them, a new individual is being taxed instead. The inheritance tax is paid by the heir and not by the person who has made the money.

The trouble with morons is that they’re convinced it is okay to be a moron if good things happen to morons. If we compress the skull of a newborn infant to make it conical, the Gods will send rains upon our crops. Similarly, the superstitious today believe that, while nobody could possibly be dumb enough to think there is a ‘right’ to unearned wealth, we have to tolerate the custom because ‘the Laffer Curve’ says that otherwise Lord Krishna will send great calamity upon the land sar. This is wrong but it is, more importantly, irrelevant. Let’s be clear now. The good of ‘society’ does not determine whether something is true or not. It was good for the ‘society’ of Medieval Europe to restrict the spread of literacy, it was good for the ‘society’ of China to bind the feet of young girls; even if abolishing Inherited Wealth led to a 50% drop in GDP and triple immigration for eternity, it would be justified because the truth or falsehood of a proposition does not depend on whether it serves ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. And if man would live without the truth he is no man but a post-historical animal. Oink. Oink. Oink.

This is what the defenders of Entitlements never understand. The Inheritance Tax primarily benefits the recipients of inherited wealth. It is comical, comical, comical to see people accuse us of ‘resentment’ towards those who have inherited wealth. We have, out of our belief in Meritocracy, voluntarily exiled ourselves from this way of life. Why is this? If you live in a secular universe, where there are no ‘objective’ values, the only valuable activity in the universe is the individual’s subjective assignment of value and striving to attain it. Those who produce a greater degree of value viz. by being more unique (quality) and achieving more (quantity) logically possess greater moral worth than those who do not. To inherit wealth in this life is to be cursed with a sort of ontological subnormality. It is obvious when we survey the great men of History that inherited wealth is a damaging thing: Temujin, Napoleon, Agathocles all rose by their own merits. Everyone knows, intuitively, that nobility won by one’s own efforts is more valuable than nobility which is inherited, for in the former kind of glory man has mastered fortune as well as other men. Nobody would know the names of Beethoven or Baudelaire if they simply copied art made by their parents. The necessity of an Entitlement Tax is entirely irrelevant to ‘equality’ as a demand, it is a basic precondition for human subjectivity.

If we imagine a country in which inherited wealth has been abolished for good it is a spectacular sight: humanity will become splendid as a train of ever more colourful birds. Men will perform marvels and prodigies as regularly as they drink water. Mediocrity will have been abolished for good.

How grateful we are that the Right-Wing don’t believe their own arguments in favour of inherited wealth! For if they did, truly, there would be no rational grounds to oppose the pardoning of rape gangs, the importing of millions to be housed at the expense of the taxpayer, the distribution of free housing to the unproductive, the rule of human rights courts over our national parliament and two-tier policing — all these are justified by the same logic the Right uses to defend Entitlements. Human Rights can only be opposed from a framework of total ethical individualism which also forbids one from the superstition of inherited wealth. If we are to say that we oppose such things as migrant hotels simply because it doesn’t benefit “society” then we have damned ourselves; in any utilitarian calculation, the happiness of millions of third worlders clearly outweighs the happiness of Eating with Todd. There is no opposition to mass migration without the inheritance tax.

This is why we applaud Rachel Reeves for daring to think the unthinkable and float yet another raise in the Inheritance Tax. So long as this remains a Labour policy, Labour are inarguably the superior government and no progressive person can really pretend otherwise. Immigration is something which can be solved in the future, abolishing the inheritance tax undermines the whole raison d’etre of opposing immigration. There would be no rational grounds for English people to oppose mass immigration if it could be plausibly argued they didn’t earn their wealth by intelligence or valour. We Jews know, a conquered people can get back up but a degenerate people is conquered forever.

We have focused so heavily on the a priori case against inheritance to make it plain as daylight, even if the inheritance tax was politically dangerous, it would still be necessary. Fortunately, there exist many good utilitarian reasons to support the Inheritance Tax and no real drawbacks. These benefits are so obvious it is inevitable some party will eventually move to a 100% Inheritance Tax. Reeves has no ideological bias in this direction, it is just plainly beneficial. In fact, it is necessary for any progressive restoration in Britain.

Firstly, let us establish these facts. There is no appetite at all among the Reforce-Con Uniparty to make savings by cutting state expenditure. Farage is smart enough to see he cannot outright privatise the NHS. As pensioners are the main voter base of the Uniparty, cuts to state pensions and taxation of private ones will not happen either. As such, the liabilities of the British state are going to continue rising into the future. There are four ways a state can meet these liabilities:

– Taxes on Income

– Printing Money

– Taxes on Assets

– Tariffs and Duties

– State Owned Enterprises

There is no real appetite for Tariffs on the British right, and Britain’s balance of trade is so shitty it is unlikely they will raise as much money as Trump’s have raised. Building profitable state owned enterprises is a ten year business, if not twenty. We can’t print an awful lot more money because Dominic Cummings and Sam Bowman broke the money machine so people could eat out to help out. The choice, therefore, is between taxes on assets, of which the Inheritance Tax is the most effective or taxes on Income. Because of our ageing population, taxes on income will be paid primarily by young professional graduates; pensioners and minimum wage/informally employed immigrants will not pay it. You are, therefore, taxing your fertile population to the degree where they cannot form families. This means, inevitably, no matter how many posts you make on X, you will have higher immigration. Reforce Ukay is a pro-mass migration party.

Entitlements Tax by contrast mainly hits people over 40, it does not affect economic activity, only assets and is thus the best tax by far for growth.

So lets be very clear about this.

The goal is to tax the young. Not lower taxes.

Whenever you see mawkish posts like these:

Remember that young graduates currently have a higher tax burden than billionaires. Handouts for the Online Right come out of your pocket.

There is no low taxes utopia round the corner for Britain. Any slackening will be picked up elsewhere. At the moment, the most politically convenient target are young people. This is what makes me so puzzled, tired and confused by the defenders of Entitlements: it isn’t even the emotional opposition to an Entitlement Tax, it is that they think that this Tax, of all taxes, is some kind of uniquely immoral one. I just do not understand this. It feels like a real moral gulf which alienates you from another part of humanity. This just cannot be made to make sense. All taxes are, at their core, the government using its superior force to extort money from you. The income tax taxes your own labour, something you should be free to sell as you will. VAT hurts the poor. Inheritance Tax isn’t just moral, it is the only moral form of taxation. It a tax paid on money nobody will ever use affecting, principally, people who are dead. I can understand, although I’ve shown why I disagree with it, people who think the IHT is less efficient than other taxes. People who sincerely believe it to be ‘immoral’, while driving the better part of your population into infertility, may as well be bees or sloths or chimpanzees they are so warped in their intuitions.

The British Right obviously care more about defending Inherited Wealth than they care about Rotherham or Migrant Hotels. They post far more about it than either of those topics. The Inheritance Tax, as it stands, raises 1.5 billion pounds for the treasury. Mass deportations are estimated to cost about 1.2 billion pounds. Reforce U.K refuse to adopt mass deportations but from day one were committed to abolishing the inheritance tax. The people who work for Reforce U.K openly and undeniably work for a party which prioritises the hereditary aristocracy over British interests; and there’s nothing they can do about this fact.

This piece has become much longer than we intended, everything you’ve read so far was only supposed to be the introduction, so we shall try and be brief. If Reeves is serious about raising it, and making collection more efficient, there are a number of things she must do. She must bring the trusts registered in U.K overseas territories under British control, she must use the investigations powers act to crack down on inheritance tax avoiders, the threshold for inheritance tax should be higher but the percentage raised to 90%; I shall limit myself to one suggestion however:

Go after nepo-housing

The Left has an easy way to completely destroy the Right’s appropriation of social housing and that is to start threatening to tax people who buy homes for their children to live in. This abominable practice is ‘social housing for the rich’. Unlike social housing, which is bad because it houses unproductive people in very productive areas, nepo-housing does this but also directly inflates the housing market.

Such a policy would be easy to implement with six months planning. The identities of owners are kept in the property register and listed in any bill of sale. Simply cross-reference these names with the people paying council tax or listing the relevant address for national insurance, NHS appointments or the electoral roll. If they share a surname, send the council to investigate, when it is confirmed immediately slap a yearly charge of 25% of the property value on both parties. This will raise millions for the treasury in London alone and spark a string of fire-sales lowering house prices at net gain for the tax payer.

If it works, it will be easy to expand. People paying their children’s rent will have to pay an additional VAT-style percentage charge. Adults living with their parents after university will each constitute a ‘bedroom tax’ surcharge to council tax (I am fully aware, as a NEET for two years, I am responsible for this and would happily go to prison for it).

There would literally be no policy better guaranteed to send the whole right-wing coalition into blind, animalistic Soy Jak Rage. JOHN MERRICK! THIS IS YOUR MOMENT! Every rhetorical argument the Uniparty Right have embraced in their misunderstanding of social housing can immediately be turned against them and they have zero come-back besides special pleading. ‘Buh – buh housing unproductive people with vegetable IQs is actually good now because it is wholesome and chungus and free market! B-B-Buh-Britain NEEDS Reforce!’ The people who get their parents to buy them flats are almost entirely unsympathetic victims, there isn’t even the pretence of rusticity which failed to save the farmers (who have been entirely forgotten: IHT is popular with the public). You can even match the Right’s xenophobia by highlighting how many foreign oligarchs buy houses in London and Oxbridge for their children studying in the U.K and expand the policy to cover all ‘intergenerational’ families.

This policy isn’t just fiscally good sense, it is a left-wing example of the sorts of trolling-to-policy pipeline the right has used without conceiving of the fact it can be used against them. Taxing nepo-housing isn’t just something the Right disagrees with, it is personally wounding for them, it destroys a whole social base upon whom the New Right identity depends just as selling off social housing is personally wounding to the Left. It reveals as a sham and a LARP the idea vloggers and lawyers are some sort of oppressed Randian stratum of wealth creators. It would socially cleanse Fulham and Islington of mullets.

I guarantee you, even threatening to implement this policy will rattle them so hard they will never talk about social housing again until the Meritocracy Party is founded. When I publish the book (soon) and start posting under my real name I am sorely tempted to film myself walking around Islington High Street or Wimbledon Common while asking everyone I meet whether their parents brought them their flat and putting out a custom map of “social housing for the rich”, detailing the vast swathes of London priced out of the range of High IQ 15 year olds by Eating with Todd.

Rachel Reeves, whatever the flaws of the regime she serves, will be vindicated just as Lizz Truss was vindicated. For all the talk of civil war and revolution and reform, there is nothing less popular among the commentariat than actually tackling the issues we face as a country. The voters chose this mess but those martyrs who fell in battle shall be painted on the cave-walls of eternity when the slate is Wiped clean.

---

This article (Bravo Reeves!) was created and published by J’Accuse and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: Alamy

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.