Well that's not quite the same as claiming that all the figures are in full view and everything's completely transparent and verified by the likes of the OBR and the IFS.

That is actually honouring a pledge made by .........wait for it ........ the previous government.

House of Commons Library : Public Sector Pay

The problem with the OBR was that there was no requirement on a government to either consult it (AKA doing a Truss) and being honest and candid with it (AKA doing a Sunak)
The OBR could only comment on what they were told.Now they have power to look into things more
So,two example-the Tories promised 40 new hospitals and that they had budgeted for that- no they had not-the money did not exist even though the Tories said it was there

Restoring your Railway -a scheme to bring back railway lines closed under Beeching-supposedly £500 million-not there

And the black hole of £22billion -equivalent to knocking 4p off NI-and who did that?
So please do not use the Daily Mail to support your arguments-a paper owned by a non dom multi millionaire via a trust and who basically does not want to pay his fair share of tax to the UK .

I posted an article from the Guardian. It quotes Labour sources saying Reeves was intending tax increases which she was hiding from the electorate. Funny that none of the usual suspects have addressed this dishonesty; I mean, the article's in the Guardian so it must be true, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ublic-services

More likely to be true and/or accurate.

So it was printed in the Guardian prior to the election - and yet it was still hidden?

Ah - I see it was an exclusive, so only a tiny minority of people (people who read the not paywalled Guardian website) would have had access to it. Obviously none of the other newspapers would have reported on the Guardian's report. Or had their own versions of what was to come .

Actually, I agree to some extent about the mixed messaging, although I can pull up far more articles saying Reeves refused to rule out tax rises except for those that had already been specifically mentioned as not to be touched, than those which state otherwise.

It must be just random chance that the newspapers who manage to mis-report the EU and push an agenda are all non-dom owned by millionaires and billionaires all happen to be right wing...

There is the Nordic Passport Union, Benelux, the Visegrad Group, EuroMed, and I know Poland has an agreement with Germany about guest workers. And there are probably a whole bunch more I don't know about.

So no, EU countries are not one huge indivisible block, there are plenty of agreements between neighbouring countries.

The US has agreements for foreign workers to come in and pick our vegetables; then they go home and come back next year... It is possible...

She did say this repeatedly, and so did Starmer. But as the article shows, they were lying because they did have plans to increase taxes.

and got a lot of people to vote for them.. Kinda reminds me of a referendum a few years back...
They all lie for your vote...

Ok, so they should have been completely straight about the state of the nation's finances and how they were going to straighten them out when their opponents in government were being deceitful and hiding the truth?

Have I got that right?

Yes, if they aspire to be anything different or better, or to be straight with the public as they repeatedly claim is their intent. But it turns out this is also a lie. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

But I know there are those who think Labour lies good, Conservative lies bad.

Your link - from before the election - says a number of things.
and
So far it looks like raising taxes is being considered. I'm not seeing that as a denial of raising taxes.
Reading on...
Has there been anything to say she's going back on this?
I see from Bloomberg 31/7/2004 that
followed by
The BBC report of two days ago also says this. This is a period of two months - before the election and up to 2 days ago where the position has been no rises for these three but there may be on others. That remains the case doesn't it?

Where's the lie?

You seem to be of the opinion they said taxes would not rise whereas they seem to have been pretty damned specific that some would, but not income tax, NI and VAT.

The right-wing mob are simply easier to brainwash and manipulate. Throw them lies and half-truths and they'll quickly scoop it up like barracuda...

The Nordics seems to have something similar to the UK+Ireland in terms of lesser restrictions. Not sure about Poland and Germany though - they are both in the EU, there are no borders, surely labour unions make sure that workers are protected and cannot be undercut in any way.

That referendum has been a massive hit to the economy and continues to do damage every single day. Unless reversed, it will continue to wreck the economy, limit its growth, competitiveness, etc. I'm still waiting for the likes of Rishi and Kwasi to fall to their knees and apologise to the nation for misleading people and causing economic damage that according to the BOE has been far worse... than the carnage caused by COVID.

Yes, that appeared to me to be a fairly consistent line, even if not always explicitly stated that other taxes would be changing or how.

I think the truncated quotes, shorn of any context, are misleading. It's usually fairly easy to read between the lines, taking into account what isn't being said, without it having to be spelt out.

Labour policy to increase taxes, increase public sector pay, increase regulations, increase government control of business/economy, not a surprise- but disgust with the Tories gave Labour a political mandate. Reeves seems quite astute politically in laying the groundwork while creating blame to the Tories for measures that are unpopular.