Rachel Reeves lied on her CV was not an “Economist”

[Disappointedagain22]

AIBU - it’s OK to lie to get ahead

AINBU - it’s bad RReeves very Publicly lied about her prior work. We are right to feel annoyed by this lie.

saw this headline and am feeling really disappointed. Think Rachel Reeves needs to tell public exactly her job title.
She changed job title from Economist, to “Retail Banking”
An Economist at a Bank, is a clear and specific job, it’s a economic research position. A good experience for her current position.

”Retail Banking” - is not a job title … she could have been doing anything in a branch from Bank Teller, to Branch manager, or working in back office operations putting bank notes in the plastic bags or in HR.

>I always thought that it’s civil servant types who actually come up with the ideas, crunch the figures.

Ministers tell civil servants what they want, civil servants work out how to implement and present to ministers.

The advantage of RR's background is that she would understand the language of whatever they present, the assumptions/models used, know the limitations of those models and understand the macro/micro impacts without needing it explained in baby steps - making the whole cycle more efficient/cooperative and much more difficult for civil servants to fudge/miss anything.

(and thatcher lost all pretence to being a scientist by continuing with monetarism long after it had so obviously failed - the fundamental tenet of scientific method is that you junk the hypothesis when it fails the test - not fudge the data)

Anyone who uses LinkedIn knows its usual to update to reflect latest significant employment - what would have been worth noting is if previous employments/roles were deleted - they are still there.
My own profile went from research chemist through programmer, analyst, architect and finally consultant - I'd be justified in describing myself as any of those.

I think it’s important to remember, in any discussions about ‘confidence’, and about the impact of anxiety about what was coming, that although the Labour Party won a strong parliamentary majority, surprisingly they did so with the support of the lowest percentage of the electorate of any post war majority government - just 34% of the electorate voted Labour.

That’s a lot of people who did not vote for this government and who were watching and waiting - many of whom will have been worried about the negative messaging and who understand the need for growth in the first place in order for the government to be able to spend it on public services.

How could they? The uncertainty was inevitable because even the OBR wasn’t in possession of the full facts until after the election. The other thing that caused uncertainty was the US election.

I think you are correct on several points, @FrankieStein403

I have said on here before that if you take the electorate as people eligible to vote (including the 40% who didn't vote) Labour only got 20% of the electorate to vote for them (the lowest since about 1850). The reason they got so many seats is because the usual tory voters deserted them. So not popular at all as 80% of the electorate didn't vote for them).

So, @Disappointedagain22 in light of @hooksbell ’s post, I suggest 2 better titles for your thread. Either

AIBU to be disappointed in an exaggerated tabloid headline?

or

Why are right wing media trying to find fault with Rachel Reeves for updating her LinkedIn profile to include both of her main pre-politics employers?

At the BoE?

And a larger % of the electorate didn't vote for the other parties. The UK political system is as it is. Stop trying to pretend the current government is in some way less legitimate.

I think there's more to it than your second option;

https://order-order.com/2024/11/15/chancellor-caught-changing-linkedin-cv-after-economist-myth-exposed/

Guido Fawkes is a gossipy right wing web site with a Mixed credibility rating, and your link contains no sourcing. I see no reason to trust it. Besides, @Clavinova , I remember you well as a Tory supporter, doing down Labour. You have a horse in this race. I don’t.

I tend to root for the government of the day, providing it passes basic tests if competency and integrity, because that how countries and their people succeed. Unfortunately that meant I was ready for a change a while back.

louddumpernoise
her pension reforms seem to have gone down well too

Her pension ideas seem somewhat similar to those mooted by Jeremy Hunt in 2023;

A summary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt’s, Mansion House speech on 10 July 2023.

... Jeremy Hunt set out his vision for unlocking the UK’s £2.5 trillion pensions market to provide capital for growth businesses and support the UK economy.

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cljyfypfl00tctpz07zimx4s9/a-hunt-for-growth-pensioners-to-the-rescue

Their source is LinkedIn for the images - are you saying she didn't in fact change her LinkedIn profile? My point only really relates to the two images - your options don't accurately reflect the update.

You have just contradicted yourself. Rachel Reeves has an economics advisory board, consisting of individuals who have worked in government for decades, as well as some who are new or have transitional roles. Despite their illustrious academic qualifications, the budget remains a microeconomic ticking time bomb.
IMO.

She wants to grow the economy but has so far failed to convince anyone they have a plan for this.

I change my LinkedIn profile all the time, depending on what I'm trying to achieve. It really isn't sinister.

Does that make them wrong?

Are you against the idea 2 political parties can agree? if so, you represent all that is wrong with politics in the UK.

The Tories had 14 years to change pension rules, yet even after all this time, they failed to do so..

4 months in and Reeves has.

Have you also been accused of plagiarism?

An examination by the Financial Times of the book found more than 20 examples of passages from other sources that appeared to be either lifted wholesale, or reworked with minor changes, without acknowledgment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/26/rachel-reeves-labour-denies-plagiarism-new-book-female-economists

Does that make them wrong?

No - I didn't say they were bad ideas - only that they seemed similar to what was mooted by Jeremy Hunt last year.

Yep you did but its not really worthy of comment.

66.3% of the voters voted for other parties. A number most people recognise as being a larger % of the electorate than the 33.7% that voted Labour. Almost double the number voted for other parties in fact.

Rishi Sunak was in finance.

No, I didn't - my original post was;

Her pension ideas seem somewhat similar to those mooted by Jeremy Hunt in 2023.
A summary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt’s, Mansion House speech on 10 July 2023...

Goldman Sachs, same as Kwarteng. I think Reeves dodged a bullet when she turned them down.

Do you mean betting against sterling/uk in the 2008 crash and making millions by doing so?

#honourablenot.

Yep, like i said "not worthy of comment"

a good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it but more importantly, is the one who carries it out and thats not Hunt.