Peter Reynolds
@peterreynolds.bsky.social
Handsome. Witty. Deluded.
Gosh, what a lot of silly mistakes we made! But at least we're going to listen now. So, can someone tell me, is genocide a good thing or a bad thing?
September 9, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Gosh, what a lot of silly mistakes we made! But at least we're going to listen now. So, can someone tell me, is genocide a good thing or a bad thing?
They're not rules, they're choices. Come on Peter, don't just post this drivel uncommented, call it out.
August 6, 2025 at 1:28 PM
They're not rules, they're choices. Come on Peter, don't just post this drivel uncommented, call it out.
I completely support your position Prem, but what do these pantomime exchanges in parliament actually achieve? We know Starmer & his lackeys conned us — neoliberal wolves gaining power in Labour's fleece. So, do you see an alternative to a vote of no confidence to defeat Labour's moral vacuum?
July 30, 2025 at 8:35 PM
I completely support your position Prem, but what do these pantomime exchanges in parliament actually achieve? We know Starmer & his lackeys conned us — neoliberal wolves gaining power in Labour's fleece. So, do you see an alternative to a vote of no confidence to defeat Labour's moral vacuum?
MPs can reject cruel bills on a case by case basis, or they can ask themselves 'What is the point of the Labour Party?' and reject the author of these amoral policies.
July 1, 2025 at 4:39 PM
MPs can reject cruel bills on a case by case basis, or they can ask themselves 'What is the point of the Labour Party?' and reject the author of these amoral policies.
This is not about one bill. Or 'optics'. It's about the moral vacuum at the heart of the Labour Party.
June 26, 2025 at 10:22 AM
This is not about one bill. Or 'optics'. It's about the moral vacuum at the heart of the Labour Party.
Big fan of your work, Peter. Curious to know what significance you attach to this article?
May 22, 2025 at 8:50 AM
Big fan of your work, Peter. Curious to know what significance you attach to this article?
Whether it's good news rather depends on what the money is being spent on, doesn't it? Water bosses bonuses? www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/03...
I don’t believe in growth
I don’t believe in growth as an economic panacea. There, I’ve said it, and most economist will be horrified.
Why say so now? Because Rachael Reeves, referred to growth 58 times in her Mais lecture th...
www.taxresearch.org.uk
May 15, 2025 at 8:01 AM
Whether it's good news rather depends on what the money is being spent on, doesn't it? Water bosses bonuses? www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/03...
Or it could cost as little as nothing. www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/12...
Nationalising water shouldn’t cost taxpayers anything
Labour claims taxpayers would face a massive bill for nationalising the water industry. But that’s not true. If a fair price is paid for the businesses and their debts, nationalising should impose no ...
www.taxresearch.org.uk
May 7, 2025 at 9:46 AM
Or it could cost as little as nothing. www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/12...
After a 4.5 year battle, a tribunal judge ruled in my favour that I had not been overpaid working tax credit. Benefit agencies get it wrong sometimes. This legislation will make them judge and jury.
April 25, 2025 at 2:24 PM
After a 4.5 year battle, a tribunal judge ruled in my favour that I had not been overpaid working tax credit. Benefit agencies get it wrong sometimes. This legislation will make them judge and jury.
Big fan of your work, Peter. Curious to know what caught your eye about this article on Government borrowing?
April 23, 2025 at 11:44 AM
Big fan of your work, Peter. Curious to know what caught your eye about this article on Government borrowing?
The 'risk' is not a dire legacy. The 'risk' is that real human beings will suffer. But it seems the charities judge the PM won't see human suffering as a compelling enough reason to change his plans.
April 22, 2025 at 9:38 AM
The 'risk' is not a dire legacy. The 'risk' is that real human beings will suffer. But it seems the charities judge the PM won't see human suffering as a compelling enough reason to change his plans.
No new petrol or diesel cars after 2030 was the manifesto. Adding 'unless they're hybrid' IS watering down Labour's commitment.
April 7, 2025 at 8:19 AM
No new petrol or diesel cars after 2030 was the manifesto. Adding 'unless they're hybrid' IS watering down Labour's commitment.
The people best placed to change this policy are Labour MPs. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting must go.
March 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM
The people best placed to change this policy are Labour MPs. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting must go.
Before they consider resigning, they should call for a vote of no confidence in Starmer.
March 20, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Before they consider resigning, they should call for a vote of no confidence in Starmer.
Labour HAS chosen — to follow neoliberal dogma and support the rich, not the poor. Vote of no confidence in Starmer now!
March 18, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Labour HAS chosen — to follow neoliberal dogma and support the rich, not the poor. Vote of no confidence in Starmer now!
Repeating the idea that there are 'Fiscal rules' propogates a myth. 'Fisacl Rules' do not exist; they are fiscal choices. In Reeve's case, bad choices which don't need to be 'bent' they need to replaced with better ones.
March 16, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Repeating the idea that there are 'Fiscal rules' propogates a myth. 'Fisacl Rules' do not exist; they are fiscal choices. In Reeve's case, bad choices which don't need to be 'bent' they need to replaced with better ones.
Enjoy the videos Jonathan, but there IS money. And tax comes AFTER government spending. See Richard Murphy bsky.app/profile/rich... who can explain it all far better than me :)
bsky.app
February 3, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Enjoy the videos Jonathan, but there IS money. And tax comes AFTER government spending. See Richard Murphy bsky.app/profile/rich... who can explain it all far better than me :)
Panic or corruption? I voted for Labour, not the debunked trickle-down policies of Starmer / Reeves that guarantee inequality and hasten climate catastrophe. IMHO, the question for Labour MPs who care about these issues is not 'Should we leave the party?' but 'Can we, together, vote out Starmer?'
January 31, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Panic or corruption? I voted for Labour, not the debunked trickle-down policies of Starmer / Reeves that guarantee inequality and hasten climate catastrophe. IMHO, the question for Labour MPs who care about these issues is not 'Should we leave the party?' but 'Can we, together, vote out Starmer?'
‘Owning debt’ is an unfamiliar concept to me, so I stumbled. Do you mean that the government debt is ‘owned’ by the people who have lent the government their money through the purchase of bonds, like ISAs and Premium bonds? If so, is the ‘asset’ the value of the bond which can be inherited?
January 23, 2025 at 12:45 PM
‘Owning debt’ is an unfamiliar concept to me, so I stumbled. Do you mean that the government debt is ‘owned’ by the people who have lent the government their money through the purchase of bonds, like ISAs and Premium bonds? If so, is the ‘asset’ the value of the bond which can be inherited?