Democrats Wanted Illegals Migrants On PERMANENT Social Security So They Could Drain Our System And We’d

ALT

View on Twitter

Express.co.uk

'Rachel Reeves is freeloader with no self-respect — how's she still Chancellor?'

Rachel Reeves is easily the worst Chancellor in living memory and the cringe-inducing bombshells just keep on dropping.

Rachel Reeves is a freeloader with no self-respect — here's £8,576 reason she must go

Rachel Reeves is easily the worst Chancellor in living memory and the cringe-inducing bombshells just keep on dropping.

By CAROLE MALONE 14:47, Tue, Mar 25, 2025 | UPDATED: 16:06, Tue, Mar 25, 2025

Why does Rachel Reeves still have a job? It's not just what she’s announcing in her spring statement this week – jobs cuts and higher taxes – that should have her sacked. It’s the fact she’s a ligger, she’s greedy and she’s totally devoid of sense. Why? Because just a few months after she, Starmer and various other cabinet ministers were plunged into a damaging Freebies row – Reeves has brazenly been at it again.

First, we discover the woman, who together with her husband is on a joint income of nearly £400,000, took free £600 seats in a VIP box for a Sabrina Carpenter concert (nope I’ve never heard of her either). She’s also taken £276 worth of free theatre tickets, £7,500 worth of free clothes and a £200 Harrods Hamper from the Qatari Embassy

Even some of her own cabinet colleagues are now disgusted at what she’s done, the major one being Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, who threw the Chancellor under a bus yesterday saying she, personally, had never taken free tickets since becoming an MP and that she was far too busy working to attend concerts. “I actually haven’t been to any concerts at all because I’m very very busy,” said Ms Alexander. “I’ve got to prioritise my time and when I’ve got time off spending it with my husband and family is a more attractive option to me.”

What is it with this woman? Has she no respect for the high office she holds? Has she no respect for herself? Does she not see this kind of greed brands her the worst kind of freeloader and a laughing stock not to be taken seriously. And yes, I know MP’s are allowed by parliamentary rules to take freebies as long as they’re properly declared and as long as public perception is taken into account. Well, first they shouldn’t be. And second, I’ll tell you what the public perception is here – it's that Reeves is a brazen ligger who’ll take any freebie she can get. The perception is that she’s using her position as chancellor to get free stuff.

It’s that she’s not just greedy, insensitive and foolish but she clearly has zero judgment about how the British people will see this at a time she’s about to heap even more taxes they can’t afford onto them – all because she’s completely ballsed up the economy. And just to feed into the stupidity argument her ludicrous excuse for taking the swanky box at the O2 concert was that “it was the right thing to do for my security.” Sorry, but Rachel Reeves wouldn’t know the “right thing” if it smacked her in the face. No, the right thing would have been NOT to take the free tickets. The right thing would have been to pay for them herself as she and her husband have a vast combined income that puts them head and shoulders above the majority in this country.

How on Earth does Rachel Reeves still have a job? (Image: PA)

The right thing to do would have been not to embarrass the Government after the Freebie scandal that engulfed it just a few months ago.A Government spokesman said this week the rules surrounding ministerial gifts had been strengthened to “ensure transparency.” Well, clearly Reeves didn’t get the memo — or maybe she thinks the rules don’t apply to her? Either way her arrogance is towering.

But then can we be surprised at her skanky behaviour when we have a leader who has done exactly what she has – taken a free box (at Arsenal) and then also insisted it was about his security. Starmer also took thousands of pounds worth of free clothes and specs from one of Labour’s biggest donors, Waheed Ali.

The fact is the PM can’t sack Reeves for embarrassing the Government because he’s done what she has. Do you remember how the Labour Party howled and screeched whenever anyone in the last Tory Government took freebies? They almost burst blood vessels in their condemnation.

But the minute they got into power all the anger was forgotten and people like Starmer and Reeves couldn’t wait to grab what they could get. It’s a terrible look and the fact Reeves still can’t see it shows just how ill-suited she is for government. But of course she’s not the only freeloader in high office.

It's been revealed that Angela Rayner, the minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, went on a taxpayer funded visit to Ethiopia. Of course, the first question has to be what possible business she could have in Ethiopia that was relevant to her job as Housing Minister and that would justify spending £20,000 of taxpayers money on it?

But while she was there she also requested a private safari trip and had to be told by the civil service that taxpayers would absolutely not be funding that. Why did a Government minister have to be told that was wrong?

Well, this is the same Angela Rayner who accepted £3,550 worth of free clothes from Lord Alli and a stay in his New York apartment. And remember it was her who had the brass neck to call the Tories scum? She needs to take a long hard long in the mirror….

As does Reeves. She’s not just the worst Chancellor in living memory. She lied about her qualifications for the job. She lied about the fictional black hole which the Office for Budget Responsibility has refused to acknowledge ever existed. And thanks to her incompetent stewardship of the economy she has now created her own black hole because she’s borrowed and spent more than she needed with the result being zero growth and a flatlining economy. And of top of all that catastrophe and inadequacy the hypocrite Reeves still thinks its OK to reward herself with freebies?

Little cutie says "hey, that's me!" 😊 Follow me for more adorable pups!

The family photo used in the Harkle Christmas card has me convinced that Meghan is not Lili's biological mother. How is Lili basically the same height as Archie when she's two years younger? Of course siblings can end up being different heights once they're older but Lily looks like a 5-6 year old. Plus boys usually end up taller not always but that tends to be the case.

There are children who are either smaller or bigger than expected for their ages but that generally applies to all siblings, either they're all taller or all shorter than average.

It's unlikely that Archie is small for his age and Lili is big for her age especially if they have the same biological parents. I'm generalizing but it just seems odd to me. I could understand if there is a medical condition but I doubt there is.

Archie's stature mirrors Meghan's but I guess she didn't want that for her daughter. I wouldn't be surprised if they got a donor egg from a white, tall, blue eyed woman.

The obsession with the children looking like the Spencers and Diana especially also makes me think Meghan didn't want to use her own eggs (if they were even viable).

Your reading on Harry's paternity is interesting as if he knows or suspects Charles isn't his biological father but it was ignored/covered up so Harry is treated as a prince and received all the privileges then he might not think of it as a problem if his children aren't either his or his wife's biological children.

It would be something if it turns out that Harry isn't the biological father of either child and Meghan is only the biological mother of Archie and that's not even considering that they most likely used surrogates for both.

Whatever the case is Harry and Meghan do things in a way for people to speculate about the children and it will be the children who grow up hearing rumours just like Harry did. He really took the "genetic pain" thing and decided to carry it on!

Hi Nonny,

Exactly. The children do not make sense in that photo and it looks fake/photoshopped (how long has it been since Harry did not have a beard?). As for the paternity of the children, who knows? I'm still not convinced that either of them exist tbh, as for all we see of them they could be borrowing kids from someone else to 'stand in' for the alleged children (Yes, I know that sounds like a far out conspiracy theory).

Whether the children are rent a kids, from a surrogate, or something else is going on, the one thing I am sure of is that there is something very dodgy about them. As you said, Harry has spoken about his own pain and anxiety over his parentage, and yet he has willingly passed that on to both his alleged kids. Some father he is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/07/elon-musk-has-ripped-cloak-of-deceit-off-britain-scandal/

We heard about laughing gas, a fetus burial, what food was consumed during labor (she's the ONLY woman in history who was allowed to eat during labor), a bouncy ball, dancing during labor, but oddly that pesky life threatening pre-eclampsia was left out...🤔