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.

Ha ha - you remind me of a previous poster (whatever happened to jgw1?)

You might not be aware of what you posted but you clearly posted 'Yep you did' after I posted 'I didn't say they were bad ideas'.

Hmm.

I work with economists in some of the PB’s. On calls, its one ‘chief economist’ supported by research analysts and portfolio managers etc.

Reeves’s bio is all a bit odd.

Sorry, that was to poetryandwine

To recap, House of Commons Libraries published a study yesterday showing that we are the 2nd lowest G7 nation for growth over the past 5 years. I referenced it precisely upthread; the sources are impeccable.

Germany’s recent, profound problems have dragged it below us. Otherwise we would be bottom. Our GDP grew a total of 3% over 5 years under The Party of Business. One could cite the pandemic except that 5 countries with more humane business practices did better.

Where was the growth?

To also add. Lower earners have one of the most generous personal allowances and a low tax rate in comparison to many other countries. Hence our issue. A very narrow tax base.

And yet it’s been confirmed. Plus it really doesn’t matter if her career path was ‘odd’.

By way of reply.

You know the expression playing a bad hand badly? Labour are in power now -
From their manifesto.

• A new partnership with business to boost growth everywhere

And yet business is saying that Labour dont understand business.

What gives?

Agree 100%

High earners: many don’t use NHS, kids private school, not using public transport. Low drain on public services.

They contribute to economy: taxis, meals out, high levels of consumption & VAT, household staff-cleaner, cook, windows cleaner, gardener, dog walker, sports coaches, dry cleaning, personal trainer, personal shopper, weekly hairdresser, interior decorators, remodeling home, masseuse, …etc

Their consumption contributes in VAT, wages for all the “people” working for them, the NI & tax from those wages. And then add the spending from the “people”

They don’t “take” much but they put a lot of cash into the UK economy.

The high earner cutting back or leaving, means job losses, less collection of VAT, NI …

Business people don’t want to pay more taxes, either personal or corporate. That’s what gives.

And yes, I will be paying them myself.

Clav, now you are here, any updates from GF on that big scandal that was imminent?

I missed that, @Clavinova. She was a junior scientist. Apparently an analogous position to RR’s entry position at BoE.

Credit the one, credit the other.

A quick Google reveals that she seems very much more qualified for the position than countless secretaries of state and, indeed prime ministers. How did being a journalist (and not even a good one) equip Johnson to run the country? Hancock was an economist, fair dues. But clearly knew fuck all about the medical profession, so what made him the perfect candidate for health secretary? Your source is the Daily Mail, op. If you cannot see where you're going wrong then I despair. By all means disagree with her policies. Many do, and many [right wing] economists do (because, let's face it, a competent Labour Chancellor at the helm must have them spitting feathers). But I don't think her credentials can be doubted. Unless you fall a bit short of critical thinking, of course.

Pretty crude attempt to change the subject, BTW

Tax as a share of GDP is on track to reaching its highest level since 1948 under the Chancellor’s plans, rising from 36.4 per cent of GDP this year to 38.2 per cent by 2029-30, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

The UK’s tax burden is currently below the average of the 38 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as the G7.

However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) earlier this year predicted that the UK will surpass both organisations’ current averages by 2027-28 – a process which will be accelerated by the tax rises introduced in October’s Budget.

And to judge by the appalling state of public services, starting with the NHS, none too soon

A stitch in time saves nine. It is a national tragedy that the Tories ran public services and local councils into the ground. The repair bills will be much higher than if services had been maintained halfway properly.

The UK’s tax burden is currently below the average of the 38 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as the G7.
However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) earlier this year predicted that the UK will surpass both organisations’ current averages by 2027-28 – a process which will be accelerated by the tax rises introduced in October’s Budget.

You say this like it's a bad thing. It isn't - it just isn't one you are ideologically on board with. Others will have a different opinion.

I don't actually follow GF - just pop in from time to time. You might hear before me.

Although I'm not aware that Thatcher held a science related position in government?

I don't think we can really criticise Rachel Reeves for being a junior economist at the Bank of England at the age of 25. I mean I expect that goes for the Governor of the Bank of England at the age of 25 too. I think she started contesting for political seats quite young too. I think she probably put economist to describe her job in retail banking because she used her economics background and maybe her job was not that straightforward to describe. It makes you wonder what is a Chancellor supposed to do to get qualified: a PPE in Oxford University/ a Masters in London School of Economics/ a few years at the Bank of England followed by a spell in retail banking seems pretty well qualified to be Chancellor. But no, she's accused of making cups of tea at the Bank of England and pretty much being an intern?!

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.

Forgive the slight derail but the attitude by some right wingers that the only people of worth in this country are those who are the so called "wealth creators" (even though that wealth is only kept within a small group do people) really pisses me off.

I don't create wealth. No one I work with does either.

What we do, as doctors, nurses, AHPs, HCAs, administrators, managers, porters, cleaners, kitchen staff and everyone else who works in a hospital (actually the entire NHS) is save lives, heal people, look after the sick and - if you want to put a financial value on it - ensure that people are well enough to work/return to work/continue working.

All of us are in those positions because the majority of us benefitted from state education. Those pesky teachers and other education workers who taught us to read, write and pass the endless exams we needed to get into the positions we are today....where we can save lives.

If those roles are less important than these saintly "wealth creators" then you will get the public sector you deserve.

PS we also pay tax. In my case rather a lot of it.

What difference does it make? PP are quibbling over whether RR deserves the designation ‘Economist’.

Most Chancellors have lacked any Economics qualification whatsoever so I am unsure of the relevance of your comment

@daliesque you win the thread.

I can see why the public sector say yes to higher taxes but for Labour to keep spending they need the growth

Which goes back to their policies