by liberal japonicus
Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, just delivered her budget to parliament and the leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch gave her reply and I’ve cued it up (I think) below. If you don’t want to wade thru the whole thing, at least check out from 1:57.
Some other background, the budget was accidentally leaked by the Office of Budget Responsibility (interesting name in light of this) about an hour before the speech. I really didn’t understand the Deputy Speaker admonishing Labour for the leak, which made no sense to me. But I put this up because I now see a ton of youtube videos from various right-wing sources with titles like ‘Kemi Badenoch Roasts Reeves”, “Rachel Reeves TORN APART”, and “Rachel Reeves SHOCKED and STUNNED by Kemi Badenoch’s BRUTAL Budget comeback”. And Reeves was not given a chance to deliver a reply, which I imagine would resemble Admittedly, my politics might be getting in the way, but to me, it seemed like ill-tempered invective masquerading as a response. At one point, Badenoch adopted a higher pitched voice that was supposed to be Reeves complaining, though I’m pretty sure that the conversation Badenoch was saying was from her head rather than a quote of anything that Reeves said.
But I’m looking online and I don’t see any commentary on this. I realize that it is difficult to explain sexism when it is delivered by another woman, but I don’t even see an attempt. I also realize that Reeves isn’t able to reply (it is supposed to kick off a couple of days of debate) so Badenoch’s jibes and insults just sit there. So am I overreacting to this or if anyone else sees this?
I always think of the UK as more civilized than us, but they are human too. I’m burning my way through the Slough House series and there’s a definite political subtext throughout about politics as cynical, stupid, and dominated by sociopaths. The author also takes frequent swipes at Trump.
I love the Slough house books – they’re also hugely scornful about BoJo. But Roddy Ho is my fave.
Our House of Commons has always been more confrontational and rougher than eg the Senate. Badenoch has been doing so badly as leader of the opposition that speculation about her imminent loss of office has been endless. She must be ecstatic to see Starmer and Reeves recently facing the same sort of thing, and about having a hugely problematic budget and its rollout to get her teeth into. I agree it was unpleasant and mocking, but not altogether out of the norm.
The House of Commons is closer to the US House of Representatives than the Senate. And has the House of Commons ever had a MP show off giant pictures of (would the equivalent of the President be the King or the PM?) his son’s penis in the House? America First!
The Deputy Speakers’ reprimand was mostly about the pre-budget briefings the government had been indulging in, and was justified. Precedent, not perfectly observed in recent times, is that the budget is kept as secret as possible until the Chancellor’s budget speech.
Badenoch’s style is ferociously to oppose anything the government does, without necessarily bothering to offer alternatives. It’s not been successful.
Sunak called a general election when he did because he didn’t want face the coming budget problems. Unlike the USA, the UK cannot run ever-increasing deficits with impunity.
My recollection is that it’s usual for the Shadow Chancellor, not the Leader of the Opposition, to deliver the response to the Chancellor’s budget. Few could name him.
Pro bono, I felt like the last part of the Deputy speaker’s admonition was accusing Labour of leaking the OBR report. I’ve been reading how the budget is supposed to be secret because it could move markets, but it seems like a very anachronistic practice, any government, especially in one in a country that seems to have splintered politically as much as the UK, has to test possible lines. (Another possibility would be to fine media that make misrepresentations about the budget, though I imagine that horse has left the barn)
While the content of Badanoch’s reply was unsurprising, the clearly theatrical aspects (changing of voices when inferring Reeve’s, the invocation and subsequent dismissal of ‘mansplaining’) that caught me by surprise.
I’m a fan of Meg Hillier, who spoke after Badenoch. Kemi is scary and stupid – makes me long for the days of Theresa May – and as an immigrant married to an immigrant, that is saying something…
Badenoch really is a character: apparently the welfare state is “unchristian” because, wait for it:
In early Christian times, there was no state or welfare, so I think that you can argue that, actually.
https://www.cityam.com/rachel-reeves-benefit-handouts-are-unchristian-badenoch-says/
Re Badanoch, this by Stephen Bush via Zoe Williams in the Grauniad
There was no state. Who does she think crucified him, an anarchist collective?
lj: yes, I loved that!
Simply loving the image of Imperial Rome as an anarchist collective!
Pontius Pilate was known to be an Antifa wanna-be after none of the kids from Occupy Wall Street wanted him hanging around.
no state and no welfare?
what is the whole “Render unto Caesar” thing about, if not about paying taxes to the state?
and no welfare? they had a whole goddess dedicated to the distribution of grain and they named their welfare system after her.
Roddy Ho is my fave
Team Lamb here. The man is my shadow self. Or maybe not so shadow.
In early Christian times, there was no state or welfare, so I think that you can argue that, actually.
Followed by:
The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.
Somebody needs a theological / historical clean-up on aisle three.
“Simply loving the image of Imperial Rome as an anarchist collective!”
But all the decisions of the emperor must be ratified by a simple majority of the collective for purely internal decisions, but by a two-thirds majority for external decisions.
Might have worked better.
russell: Jackson Lamb is a great creation and character, and someone a joe would definitely want on their side. But the Rodmeister – what bliss he is in all his deluded glory. Have you read all of them, including the Slough House adjacent “The Secret Hours”?
“Have you read all of them”
I’ve only seen the series on Apple TV. The books are in my queue.
And yes, Roddie Ho is non-self-aware perfection.
Ha – I’ve not seen any of the series, although I know everyone says they’re great. I try to limit the platforms I subscribe to, and actually I watch very little TV compared to most people, but I imagine I’ll weaken at some stage…
GftNC, AppleTV is 50% off for Black Friday if you want to do a binge. There are some other shows that are pretty good to binge thru as well.
Gary Oldman as Lamb is worth the price of admission.
Ho is perfectly cast as well FTM.
cleek, but the Roman anona was only for the deserving poor and their number was limited by law (and excluded migrants).
Thanks lj, will check that out today!
but the Roman anona was only for the deserving poor and their number was limited by law (and excluded migrants).
just like the US.
A discussion of early Christianity needs to consider the practices and institutions of Second Temple Judaism in addition to those of Rome. And those include the tzedekah, which was a mandatory tithe for helping the poor as well as travelers.
It was administered through religious institutions – the temple, and then synagogues during the early Rabbinic period – but there was no clear line between those religious institutions and civic or municipal government. To the degree that the Jewish community was self-governing during Roman occupation, the religious institutions *were* the government.
To the degree that the Jewish community was self-governing during Roman occupation, the religious institutions *were* the government.
The Christian nationalists would be ecstatic to implement that model. Even if they reject the bits about caring for the poor.
cleek, that was the point. No work requirements though. The anona was not sufficient for a full family anyway. And rents in Rome were extremely high too (worse than NY City).
Well, full time work in several jobs and still in need of food assistance is indeed a parallel. A major difference is that any politician proposing cutting the anona would have quickly met a sticky end. And actually cutting it almost killed an emperor or two. The threat level is not yet as high in the US.
Btw, ‘deserving poor’ almost required “…”. The main criteria were not necessarily actual need (again one could see parallels).