Now, pay attention, Possums because this is serious! Theft is broadly defined in law by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as being “the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it”.

Appropriation is the operative word applied here to illustrate the point. “Appropriation” is defined in the Act as the “assumption of the rights of the owner of the property and includes any act showing that one is treating the property as one’s own, which need not necessarily involve taking it away”.

Furthermore, for example, if A lends his golf clubs to B for a week and B subsequently decides to keep the clubs or sell them, this indicates that B has assumed the rights of the owner unlawfully. “Property”, by definition, “includes all tangible and intangible objects and choses in action…” (basically a legal term meaning a right to enforce a pecuniary claim, for example, in court).

“…Property belongs to anyone who either owns it or has physical possession or control of it.”

Contextually speaking, this definition of theft could explain the Chancellor’s humiliation yesterday at the CBI where she stated that her recent budget was essentially business friendly. That assertion, many believe (especially in the world of business), in labelling the budget as “business friendly”, is a gross inaccuracy as firms are in fact being fleeced.

It could also be argued that by depriving pensioners of winter fuel allowances, sticking it to hard-working families by whacking 20% VAT on school fees, potentially taxing family farmers out of existence, upping National Insurance contributions only for private sector employers, and general indulgence in an orgy of typical Labour tax and spend, are all time-tested policy failures.

This lot tried them many times before and look at the legacy it left. They say that a definition of insanity is trying to repeatedly do the same thing, yet each time expecting a different result. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then there’s a good chance it is in fact………a duck!

Why do this lot find using basic common sense or even understanding simple arithmetic so problematic? The upshot of all this chicanery is conversely easy to understand. Labour is nicking our cash, driving up our debt burden, and generally bleeping us up the bleep with their incessant theft!

Ms Reeves stood accused, amongst other things, of bilking businesses with her Budget minutes after having had the nerve to defend her policies to the CBI. She claimed to be “on the side of businesses” following her tax-laden Budget. Say what? Total hogwash!

A “rock of stability” was another laborious part of her tedious homily. Representatives at the conference were told that the Government will “create the conditions to encourage investment and ruled out any further tax raids on firms over the coming parliament”.

That’s nice of them. Encouraging investment? Discouraging more like! Undeterred, she boldly insisted it was a “one-off to make the Treasury’s numbers add up, and she will never have to deliver another like it before the next election. This was the right approach.”

Continuing, she said: “I faced a problem, and I faced into it, and we have now drawn a line under the fiction peddled by the previous government. We’ve put our public finances back on a firm footing, and we’ve now set the budgets for public services for the duration of this Parliament.”

This rubbish is neither reassuring, nor is it remotely credible given Two-Tier and Rachel, Princess of Thieves’ fondness for porkies. Virtue-signalling and telling lies in the same breath is dishonesty at its unscrupulous worst.

“The public sector will also have to live within their means and deliver meaningful reforms over the coming years to ensure better outcomes and value for money”, was another whopper because we all know full well they won’t. Don’t forget, Possums, that the unions have rediscovered their mojo for the time being.

For all her bluster though, the Princess of Thieves still faced a frosty reception. CBI chairman Rupert Soames fumed: “There is no doubt here, that in this Budget, business has been milked as the cash cow. This week, the Department of Work and Pensions is going to produce a paper setting out actions to help get a meaningful number of the nine million (jobless people) back into work. But at the same time, we have a Budget which makes employing people, particularly the young, part time and low pay much more expensive.”

And we have an employment rights bill which makes employing people much more risky and an adventure playground for lawyers. These policies are directly in conflict with each other. It’s hardly surprising that businesspeople are scratching their heads and asking themselves: “What really is the government trying to achieve, and how do these policies hang together?”

Conservative Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride, weighed in too by saying Ms Reeves had “some gall to stand in front of business leaders and suggest that she is on their side”, adding: “Labour’s National Insurance jobs tax will punish businesses across the country, making it harder for them to create jobs, driving down wages and discouraging investment”.

Mel has a good and valid point, wouldn’t you say? The Federation of Small Businesses also chipped in, demanding yesterday that Ms Reeves look again at her flagship employment proposals after the official government watchdog warned that the Government’s impact assessments are seriously lacking.

All this amounts to a long list of charges. Obviously not in the literal or legal sense, but it is a damning moral indictment born of gross incompetence and flippancy with our moolah nonetheless.