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.

The thing is if there was anything to it, there would be conservative MPs attacking her and they aren't because they know there's nothing tangible in the criticism.

Well. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Excellent point @Appleandoranges

I disagree - its an ongoing story evidently, so it might be prudent to watch it unfold.

Good point. They’d be all over it.

I’m not so sure. If the media and social media are doing the damage then they can watch and wait for the optimal time to put the boot in.
That way they don’t have their CVs looked at too closely either.

It’s an embarrassing distraction for KS even if it is just media froth.

In practice they only knife each over policy differences because each side know the other pretty well.

This sort of shady stuff is the work of party officials who don’t have the same skin in the game. MPs keep quiet for all sorts of reasons, but they rarely get personal like this.

I mean they are still pretending Michael Fabricant has hair. All sides of the house

James Daly didn’t. He conducted a vendetta against Rayner.

And he lost his seat. Nor did he have the backing of his colleagues. Daly was a fool for imagining he would build a career by tearing down someone else.

They nearly all lost their seats. I very much doubt it had much to do with his attempts to get Rayner prosecuted.

Dan Hodges isn't tweeting daily hasn't mentioned anything about Reeves' CV

No but he was deputy party chairman and subject to a fair bit of criticism. As I say, it’s rare. He put so much energy into Rayner he failed to remember to make a positive case for his own cause. That’s why he’s a fool, as is the idiot who thought this would be a killer blow against Reeves.

I don’t think I have ever seen one work in the last decade except Johnson who was forced to resign over partygate. Starmer learned a fair bit after that beer gate story. Hang together and it will pass. And so it shall.

I wonder if Badenoch will mention anything at PMQs? I get the feeling she genuinely dislikes RR.

An unusual move if so. She has to call Reeves a liar, which isn’t permitted. But isn’t the answer that Keir patronisingly talks about the budget as a good thing that she doesn’t understand? I fear it is just too ersatz like the Rayner attack

Rachel Reeves has to go. Liar. Fraud.

Fortunately it’s not your call.

I always get the impression there aren't many people she does like.

1. Reeves was/is an economist. She has the training and qualifications from two of the UKs top ranked universities including the most prestigious UK economics hothouse.
2. Being pedantic, your LinkedIn profile is not a CV - it's more of a shop window - as such you big up everything especially in your first decade after uni when your real world achievements haven't yet forked any lightening and in any case are usually claimed by your boss.
3. She was elected as MP in 2010 at the age of 31 just about a decade after her MSc - she was perfectly entitled to say she was an economist during that prior decade - the spell at HBOS doesn't mean she stopped being an economist - just that the job she was doing may not have needed those skills.

The overlap of RR and Kev Gillett had to be about a year of the three she was at HBOS and given his wider 'operations' role seemed to be closing branches, interactions with complaints staff '3 levels below' would have been cursory.

He says that RR was a manager and that the 3 'senior' managers were signing off each others expenses - not that RR was one of those managers - if they were senior to her what possible role could she have had in this 'scandal' ?

(In any case the signoffs in themselves wouldn't be unusual - the issue being whether a manager was signing off expenses that breached policy or that exceeded their authority. I'd be surprised if anything actually happened to those three beyond some updates to the expenses policy. )

This really is mud slinging in the hope something will stick. It's also clear that OPs thread title is libellous - suggest she gets mn to insert 'alleged'
1.

Well, you have gone on record that you do not like Reeves either - perhaps it’s for the same unspecified reasons?

What are those reasons btw?

I know this Labour government has had the worst start of any government in history, but even going by their low shambolic standards, I would be amazed if she is in the job much longer. As someone who runs a business, lying on your CV is an instant sacking. No ifs, no buts.... They have lurched from one disaster to the next and have made the wretched, dreadful Tory Party seem half-decent. Starmer must get a grip, and first things first..... Reeves must go. She is hopeless anyway.

So she made tea for 6 years in BoE after studying in LSE?

I think she was unqualified for the job, and needed to burnish her CV. Her subsequent amendments are incriminating.

Yes, she should go - I hope the media drumbeats grow.

Have you seen her CV? Do you even know what Linkedin is?

A real news story doing the rounds is the start Labour are making to childrens services, where privatised operators are making over £45k profit per child in their care.
It will cost billions to put this right and gradually move children away from these crooks and into either not for profit companies or council run services.

Then we have over 700,000 women on waiting lists for gynae treatment, some in agony, a waiting list that has doubled in the last 3 years under the Conservatives....

These are the sorts of problems Labour are facing but all tory supporters can come up with is a Lindedin non story about who did what over 15 years ago.

But what it does show is that the Cons have learnt nothing from your defeat in July.

Even if Reeves did exaggerate her experience as an economist, why would that make her unqualified to be Chancellor?