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.

'capitalist supporters'

You'd like a different system to capitalism?

What does this look like?

There is a lot of hot air from the usual suspects (GB News, Daily Fail, Torygraph) complaining about what is little more than shorthand on Rachel Reeves' part.

She worked for the Bank of England in a policy role and then worked for HBOS. Going from the role she had at the BoE to a "back office administrative role" would make absolutely no sense.

The truth of it - I suspect - is that all the right wing shit rags named above are being liberal with the term "back office" which means any role that doesn't generate revenue. HBOS is not an investment bank that sells investment research so they probably don't have any front office economists.

What I suspect Reeves was doing (and it makes a lot more sense than a change in career to administration) was working in the Risk function, either credit risk or as part of its Capital Adequacy team (called ICAAP). This is a much more plausible career move from someone who first worked for the BoE.

Thank you.

So you have identified ‘the problem’, but not the solution.

Are you familiar with the word ‘arbitrage’? In finance, an ‘arb’ is the act of buying and selling in two markets at the same time, to take advantage of temporary mispricings. We say that the ‘arb is open’.

Well, the arb is wide open for the wealthiest in the UK - and many are leaving. Capital is in flight.

With an ageing demographic in the UK and elsewhere, just when many of the brightest and best are leaving. Many of these people create wealth in shareholder value, in investment returns, in jobs, in startups etc.

And yes, in the fiscal take.

You may get closer to your socialist utopia, but at a terrible cost, I fear.

I'm not against capitalism. But some people on here really don't seem to care at all about the things that go wrong when there are no checks and balances on capitalism. I've said what I'd like to see: a system where people can still get very rich, but where the pay differentials are closer to where they used to be - so not 56:1 which was the average pay differential in FTSE 350 companies in 2022, and certainly not 100:1 as in the largest FTSE 100 companies.

What I want is to live in a world where it's possible to work a full time job and have enough money for a modest but comfortable home that isn't overpriced, riddled with black mould and unfit for human habitation, enough food on the table and some money left over for enjoyment and leisure. I'm perfectly happy with some people strutting around buying new Louboutins every week and driving Ferraris, as long as hard working people can afford to live. I do not see why that is so much to ask.

Sorry to disappoint you but I knew already - I posted this back in June;

Rachel Reeves joined HBOS's retail mortgage team as an economist in 2006 - the following year their share of new mortgage lending halved to its lowest level for seven years. That was her department - not a plan for growth was it.

Turns out I was misled - she wasn't working as an economist at the time and she worked in admin/complaints or whatever.

What makes you think Guido Fawkes didn't know either?

https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

I'm not after a socialist utopia at all, stop putting words in my mouth. I would just like the gap to be a bit smaller.

How many of these really wealthy people do actually create jobs and startups? And where does that shareholder value go? Not to someone working a mundane but useful low paid job, except perhaps in their pension funds.

This is the kind of nonsense I regularly see in my LinkedIn feed. "Boo hoo, we're leaving."

Yeah? Well where are you going then? Because the choices are either countries with higher taxes, countries in the middle of nowhere or countries with wars. Take your fucking pick 😂

Public domain.

Her team did not deny she did not work as an “economist” for the bank (HBOS), but instead said she “covered various areas using her economist background.”

Higher taxes? Not for higher earners no. Taxes which are on par, better infrastructure and better opportunities in global offices. The UK is a declining hole to be honest.

Yeah, that would make sense. She was probably doing something like a Recovery and Resolution role or Liquidity for example. Something that you would normally need to have an Economics or Finance degree to do. Not back office administration.

Misinformed nonsense.

Well, that is true. Not helped by the self inflicted shitshow that was Brexit.

So where are they going to go? Jersey maybe, so they can pootle their Ferrari around at 40mph? Or maybe they'd like to give Kazakhstan a go, they have very low income taxes.

Personally I would like them to fuck off. Because once they do it will become obvious to everyone else that it is the UK's economy with a deep skills base that made them rich and people are more motivated when they keep more of the wealth they create rather than handing it to some tosser who whinges about paying their fair share. Let them rot in whichever godforsaken haven they want to but it won't be where business is done.

100%

Personally I would like them to fuck off.

Of course this is always said on here, and maybe you're getting your wish with current policies, but it will be other countries that get that tax take.

Look at @summer555 pp earlier in the thread outlining how many will leave and how the tax burden is allocated

It won't help anyone to have lower tax receipts

For all these posts on not wanting growth nor high tax receipts not even Labour say that will help them spend. 'Difficult decisions' then

Are you ok? Higher rate tax payers pay some of the highest taxes in the world. We also have one of the smallest tax bases in the world because we tax everyone else so little.

You kind of need higher rate tax payers, especially as they are the ones with globally transferable skills which we need. The pull of moving to another country where everyone pays their fair share and has a decent infrastructure because of it is appealing. Instead of being the skilled ones being milked forever more by the majority.

I think you need to calm down and think logically.

Are you suggesting that Rachel Reeves should update her LinkedIn profile to read 'Not Boris Johnson'? I replied to your Margaret Thatcher post with a link to her first job as a research scientist in the plastics industry which you overlooked.

As other posters said, Rachel Reeves as got a PPE degree from Oxford and a Masters (I think in Economics) from London School of Economics. Why on earth would she just be making cups of tea in the Bank of England??! Where did that come from? OK she worked in retail banking afterwards not as an economist but so what?That's experience in financial services which is very relevant to her role as Chancellor. Whatever anyone's criticism of her, she is intelligent and qualified. She also had a normal state school background. I mean if all that Guido could criticise her for is that she shouldn't have put economist in the retail banking bit. This criticism of her just smells of sexism and is sooo demoralising. Can't they criticise her for something else?

Oh, dont worry - from the sphere I work in, they are leaving all right. I could even give you some rough numbers. I work in wealth - closely with PB’s and AM’s etc.

I can also tell you this - of those high earners who choose to stay, or are compelled to - many will cut back. What does that mean? It means less discretionary spending. And yes, that means jobs will be lost - perhaps people you know in your social circles etc.

She put her role as economist at the BoE.
The only change anyone has been able to show about the retail part is she changed the bank name because it had been taken over.
Is your point that she is an economist but she hasn’t always worked as one?

She was an exon9mist at the BoE. Confirmed and unchanged on her LinkedIn.

Yeah, people who work in wealth. I must ask, are you paid to spread this nonsense? Or do you just sometimes forget that the argument you're making is that these very rich people should pay proportionately less tax than their cleaner?

No, I am not paid to post, and nor is what I write nonsense - its my knowledge and first hand experience, whether you like what I say, or not.

Proportionately less tax than their cleaner? Shall we go through the numbers together? Now, that’s nonsense.

Dubai, Singapore, Caymans … Switzerland, Guernsey, Monaco, Malta … Golden Visa opportunities other countries to attract investment.

20 yrs ago, it was UK was very attractive to expats …. That’s what made UK a financial centre. The gov mandated scheme was have the best & brightest come to UK for their career. Tax rates lower than rest of Europe. Expats won’t retire in UK, won’t be a pension / benefits burden. There were all kinds of Inland Revenue approved programs to make tax rates low for “foreigners”.

Now it could be argued that UK is no longer wants to be attractive to Best & Brightest from anywhere … the jobs aren’t here, and the taxes are high so less incentive for anyone who is a high earner to move here. Great place tho if you are unskilled because min wage attractive!

Absolutely right.

And others are returning to their home nations, because the fiscal regime is favourable compared to the UK.