What Rachel Reeves can learn from Donald Trump

Even Donald Trump once told a good joke. It’s worth repeating. At a fundraising dinner eight years ago he referenced a speech his wife Melania had made. Melania had been accused of plagiarising a speech, or large parts of one, delivered a little time before by Michelle Obama. 

Trump said that when Michelle Obama stands up and makes a speech, everybody loves it. My wife gives the same speech, everybody gets on her case.

See – it’s smart, acknowledges a reality, rather than bombastically slamming it, and makes it look like he has something about him. Quite what happened in the intervening years is for the memoirs when his cowed acolytes finally come clean. But while Donald Trump can find moments – the tonal shift coming around that Gary O’Donoghue interview was from way out yonder – chancellor Rachel Reeves can’t catch a break.

Her Mansion House speech, when chancellors annually address the gilded brass of the financial services sector presenting their thinking for the period ahead, is a key moment in the financial calendar. It was the chance for her to show more after recent tribulations. She tried a joke. I think it was a joke, or at least a light-hearted moment. It went like this. She mentioned speaking to a young schoolgirl who asked her about her dream job. “Given the events of recent weeks you can understand why I might say any job but this one… but I am very proud to stand here as chancellor.”

It’s the way she tells them!

That’s not the key takeaway we, the people, are supposed to take from that speech. I felt sorry for her. She couldn’t find the means to navigate around something simple to allow a memorable moment to lift people. The symbolism is hardly subtle.

Read more:

• Oasis songs speak to people in a way other artists only dream of
• Elon Musk says AI will take all our jobs – but the truth is more complex
• How building a healthier society will get Rachel Reeves out of a bind

The key takeaway, though, was her insistence that savers should be encouraged to put their savings into stocks and shares, to increase their potential return and to help boost the economy. There had been some suggestion previous to the speech that this would include how our money is held at particular levels of risk/return in pension funds, and allow us to take more control of that. But her speech did just seem to be about where savings were invested. 

My colleagues at Big Issue Invest, who understand these things properly, would be able to cut into the minutiae. But from where I’m standing I’m left thinking: good luck with that. And by the way, isn’t that how we got into the mess we’re in in the first place?

Reeves had previously signalled she wanted to get money out of savings by hitting the tax-free element of ISAs. That seemed wrong-headed – she was happy to do that, to get at those savers with smaller amounts, who diligently probably put away for a rainy day over years, but not really get into the reeds of a wealth tax. That idea was shelved.

The new scheme surely will also target those with not much savings. It is remarkable to remember that so many people in Britain don’t have any savings at all. Around 34% have no savings or less than £1,000. The average held in a savings account is just over £17,000. That’s still a good chunk, but it could become less if Rachel Reeves’s encouragement for playing with stocks and shares sees shares value plummet. As many people are feeling the ongoing cost of living hit their pockets – the price of food is still feeling supercharged – a savings buffer is needed. It’s not something to toy with.

Encouraging a looseness with credit and debt, helped by banks with fewer controls, led to the collapse in 2008, something we know is still impacting. That’s not good.

It all just felt like a lot of ‘Is that all you’ve got’? Maybe she should ring Donald.

Paul McNamee is editor of the Big Issue. Read more of his columns here. Follow him on X.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more.