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.

Yes he did talk about the £22 billion black hole but he didn't talk about pension changes, CT rises, removal of single person discount, CGT increases, removal of fuel duty cut and many others which the press and tory supporters constantly went on about, none of which actually happened.

What part of the budget was shitty? for the vast majority, it will make no negative difference at all & for those on lower earnings will mean a pay rise.

On the £22bn Black hole, how can you say it was "made up" ? Hunt did not fund the 4% NI cut, neither did he fund the pay rises for Nurses etc - these need paying for.

Hunt said the NI cut would be funded by cuts to public services BUT didn't specify which ones would be cut.

Reeves either had reverse all of these OR fund them, which she has done, how would you have paid for these?

Is it really? Says who, someone much less qualified than Reeves and daft enough to quote nonsense because they agree with it?? 😜😂

Well if you see I was referring about all political parties and being middle class not having who to vote for. I believe people should be able to create wealth and not be slave tax payers. However, this is the wrong country for that. In fact as we write this there is a mass exodus of high earners to other countries. I love that you think people can be squeezed £12.000 before tax for private schools. That 7 percent you said is nothing. Well, that’s very rude to take people for granted. The consequences of this type of decisions are enormous. You will see but for now feel free to call me dumb and selfish. Before someone say we need to pay taxes for the NHS again yes I am all up for it. But if you check it is mainly higher earners always being shafted by ALL governments. Also, putting yourself in the hands of the state may leave you at their mercy. So yes it feels scary to think about the future of the economy if the person in charged is not even honest with her background education and skills. Ignore at your own peril. I would do what is right for my family as I am not married to politics ideologies.

It's a long while until then, she could have lifted it for 25/26

Excellent post. Shame you can't pin a post on some threads.

I just checked, no Hunt was a management consultant.

Its 7% of all children in Private School & for the vast majority of parents, this extra will not make any difference to them & schools can mitigate if they wish? after all they are supposed to be charities, so should be able to live up to this billing and help parents of SENDS children, the Govt has upped the allowances given to military families too.

I ve seen no taxes i pay increase & if they improve Dentistry and the NHS, then i'll save money.

I didn't call you dumb, you re clearly not but there isn't a mass exodus of people leaving the UK, there is always a flow of wealthy people looking to move to the cheapest tax regime but the reality is we in the West, cannot compete with 0% tax areas.

I would fall into the MC description but i believe in having less inequality not more & have few issues with what Labour have done so far, the 2 things i would change are a higher TH for WFA and an exemption for older farmers, who don't have time to do tax planning.

On Reeves and lying, she hasn't, no one after 13 pages has produced a shred of evidence otherwise.

How would you suggest she pays for this?

there isn't a mass exodus of people leaving the U.K.

There is (it's been covered extensively in the FT and the Guardian). The U.K. is on track to lose more high net worth individuals than any other country, bar China, this year.

Source (from the FT last month): "The UK is expected to lose the greatest proportion of millionaires in the world over the next four years, according to research. Analysis from economic think tank the Adam Smith Institute found the share of the population who are millionaires will fall by 20 per cent by 2028."

And from Hansard: "It is important to remember that the top 5% of taxpayers are projected to pay nearly half of all income tax in 2023-24; and the top 1% as much as 28%. "

I'd be amazed if we don't have a net loss in tax revenue which, given the level of public debt, should concern people a lot more than it seems to.

I’ve never paid school fees, have paid stamp duty four times in my entire life, don’t know how much the first council tax since the election will be as it hasn’t been set yet, and income tax remains the same. So which taxes are up?

This is the typical slur of the right again - thata if you don't oppose what Labour are doing, it's because you're on benefits, have never worked, don't pay taxes or are in a dead end job. The idea that people can actually care about those less well off than themselves doesn't occur at all.

@dottiehens why do you have a problem with higher earners paying more tax than lower earners? The previous government's unfunded NI cuts have been shown to benefit higher earners more than lower earners, so now it's someone else's turn.

I am certainly not going to defend Hunt. That doesn’t mean the £22billion is actually a genuine figure. The OBR hasn’t supported it. It is a handy justification for wriggling out of their manifesto.

Who do you think is going to fund this if it isn’t the vast majority? Who are the people paying for it?

We will see what happens in the next quarter.

I sincerely and deeply wish my life was so empty of worry that I could find the time to even think about something as trivial as this. It’s so far outside my frame of reference that the idea someone would care about it boggles my mind.

I disagree with her policies but I think she's an intelligent person and definitely would class her a professional Economist

Yes please. If Reeves is terrible let her be terrible on her own terms, not for sexist reasons.

The posters talking about whether she made the tea reveal themselves to be thoroughly regressive in their attitude. I am pretty sure they would not tolerate being talked about like that in those terms.

If you missed the tax rises on working people, yes working people, because employers employ working people, then MN cannot educate you. Try educating yourself.

Remember when relying on the press for accuracy (or not) that the Mail, the Mail on Sunday, the I and the Metro are all non-dom owned.

So it’s a case of owning our media, but avoiding our taxes.

You were the tea poster. Care to explain why you thought that was relevant to Reeves? So regressive a comment.

Of course they do, especially if it is a promotion. We have absolutely no idea what RR’s job was. The president of HBOS could accurately put ‘Retail Banking’ on their CV and LinkedIn.

It was bias, conscious or unconscious, to list only less important jobs amongst the possible ones for RR at HBOS. A PP did this and other PPs critical of her ran with it, with no evidence whatsoever.

Employers National Insurance has been raised which makes a significant difference to many companies. You can't really ignore this element.

Try discovering some manners. Employers’ NI increase - reversing the reduction they were recently handed - isn’t a tax on working people who will notice no difference in the bottom line on their payslip.

ToOP, @edwinbear , @Clavinova , @Ytcsghisn and others who fuelled a so-called controversy over Rachel Reeves’ LinkedIn and CV:

Turns out that Bank of Scotland was a retail bank. In 2001 it merged with Halifax and the merged bank became HBOS.. Rachel Reeves was truly making a minor adjustment to her CV to reflect the current world.

I discovered this in approximately 2 min of research. It speaks volumes that neither Guido Fawkes nor the tabloids that picked up his so called report bothered to do the same.

To say nothing of RR’s critics on this thread.

It's actually been a long time since we had an economist as Chancellor. Yet mysteriously nobody said any of those men weren't qualified for the job. Strange, eh?

I think Reeves has made some poor decisions recently but that is because she has allowed ideology to override rationality, not because she isn't sufficiently qualified for the job.

A refreshing criticism, @Marlhmarlol

Almost as if GF et al had some reason not to point out truth