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've just looked at Rachel Reeves' LinkedIn profile and concluded that this 'Rachel Reeves lied' story is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. She describes herself as 'Economist' at the Bank of England, listing three jobs, each with job titles and dates, two of them in Washington, US. She can't just have been making tea!

So far, so good. Although she was at the Halifax for pretty much the same period of time (three plus years), she doesn't list any roles. 'Retail banking' is a descriptor for whatever she did at the Halifax, with no job titles given. As this job followed her time at the Bank of England, this is odd and opaque. She read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford and did an economics masters so her academic credentials are sound, and appropriate for a Shadow Chancellor and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think she should be proud to be the first female chancellor. The campaigns to promote STEM subjects to girls shows there is still some shattering of that particular glass ceiling to be done. But if I were Kemi Badenoch, I would be saying, as she has done, that the Conservatives are now on their fourth woman leader while all Labour leaders have been white and male.

Her husband was director of International Finance and Director of finance at the DWP, his thesis was on the intellectual, political & cultural significance of Penguin books 1935-56.

Did anybody question his credentials in the same way? Despite the horrorshow at the DWP.

Not the point of the thread but women are judged far more harshly than men for the same thing. As a woman in STEM myself all the initiatives, 'girls in tech' fluffy pink bootcamps etc etc BS don't change the fact that we're judged more harshly and held to higher standards.

All the campaigns focus on getting women in because it's low hanging fruit, easy to show progress but retaining us is far harder and that's the real problem. Oh and also, the people that run these bootcamps/initiatives etc do very well put of it so have no incentive to stop and do something that actually works.

Even compared to our beloved PM who's done more questionable things, the more vitriolic and hateful comments (in my view) come out when it's the women..... Both Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner.

As @Chan9eusername said, Rachel Reeves has an MSc in Economics from LSE, a true world leader in the field, following her PPE degree from Oxford. Then her 6 years at the Bank, whatever her job title may have been.

Just curious, OP, what you think of Margaret Thatcher calling herself a scientist on the basis of a mere undergraduate degree and her work for an ice cream manufacturer? Or whether the many, many Tory chancellors in the late 20th c and early 21st c - some of whom did demonstrably run the country into the ground - were suitably qualified? Please discuss.

^ this is the general view in the city as well. Brace position folks.

If she was there for six years her role probably changed, not unusual for the new graduates to make the tea but to be honest when I was part of the senior management team I made the tea sometimes as did my boss.

I'm sure there were people in the company who resented the fact I earned more than them who'd be happy to point out I made the tea.

I don't agree with all of her policies, but also anybody halfway competent knows that the UK has deep systemic problems that will take years to resolve. No government that only has a 5 year term looking forward to the next election cycle will be able to solve it. This thread isn't about economic analysis so I won't go too deeply into that but what 'the city' (who, specificslly? ) thinks isn't really relevant.

This is a completely different matter from the claim that she's unqualified and there because of identity politics. On the contrary she's the most qualified out of her predecessors (on paper anyway).

She has a degree in PPE from Oxford and MSc in Economics from LSE, and has had jobs in retail banking and as an economist. She is not from the typical public school background of many MPs.

I am not a labour supporter and don’t agree with many of the labour policies, but greatly admire RR for her achievements. She doesn’t need to lie on her CV.

She lied - shock horror 🤣🤨.

These threads are so depressing. Most of the folks whipping up the frenzy of indignation here have not the slightest clue what a graduate economist actually does in an institution like the BoE.

Maybe she's had more than one job and they didn't all have the same title. I generally say I was a senior HR manager, I started my career as a shorthand typist, did day release for 4 years to improve my qualifications and prospects. So was I a shorthand typist or a senior HR manager? I was both and other things in between.

She worked for the Bank of England. She could have been an economist in the Retail banking supervision space. In any case she’s still more qualified than most previous chancellor’s.

As soon as a woman or minority gets a good job, out come the crabs to raise doubts over their qualifications. Meanwhile David Cameron’s main qualification for PM was that he thought he’d be ‘rather good at it’.

If you’re a woman and even more so a minority woman, the bar is set in the stars and you’d better not make one mistake. If you’re a white upper middle class male, the bar is set below Satan’s foot.

As was our last one. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...

It doesn’t matter weather you think she made tea or not. she changed her job on her CV from economist to retail banker, she lied

Jesus you sound like an eight year old.

As the UK has been stuck at the bottom of the G7 for growth ever since the pandemic, and was doing none too well before it, one wonders about the motivation for posts like this. We have all seen the IFS and OBR reactions to this budget, but what’s new?

The chance to improve the NHS and the social infrastructure of the country, that’s what. It may or may not work because as PP have said things are dire. But having won the election Labour deserve their chance to improve our standard of living, and in particular health outcomes unworthy of a G7 nation.

The other new thing I imagine some don’t much like is the probability of further taxes rises, personal and corporate. Could that possibly have anything to do with the city’s worries?

No! Surely not. All the Tory comics are carrying it apparently.

I’m sure here CV is as robust as most CVs that are written - factually correct, but presented in the best possible light. And why not. But I don’t believe a competent economist would put together a “budget for growth” which would lead to our growth prospects being downgraded by the OBR and the IMF almost immediately it was published, our inflation outlook being upgraded by the BofE, OBR and IMF, increases in projected unemployment, lower wage growth and higher mortgage rates. Followed by the retail, hospitality, care, education and health sectors all talking about lower investment and/or job cuts.

Brace position folks

The dramatics are unconvincing.

The Telegraph says it is alleged Reeves lied. It does not say she lied. This is a convenient, lazy and disingenuous journalistic device used to smear political opponents. All it needs is one person (or website) to say anything, and it can be reported as an allegation, and left to the 'no smoke without fire' brigade. The Telegraph has numerous researchers and journalists who could find the evidence to support the allegation if it were true, but for this headline they choose not to. Why?

If we turn to the Telegraph, the Mail, the Express or right wing websites for objective information on Labour politicians, we shall be disappointed. Ditto if we seek balanced assessments of Conservative politicians and policies in the left wing press.

The idea that facts are subjective, and that all news sources are equally accurate is one of the biggest threats we face today. Recent events make this only too clear. Anyone can say anything, particularly online, but it does not make it true. Surely our duty is to do our best to assess the truth of what we are being told by seeing it in the context of our news sources' agendas, and by fact checking as best we can.

What is not contested is that Rachel Reeves studied PPE at Oxford and Economics at the LSE (generally considered the UK's most competitive universities) and spent six years working for the Bank of England. Whether or not I agree with how she applies her economic knowledge and experience, these seem relevant and useful qualifications for her job.

I absolutely agree with this.

Hardly any of our MPs in any party have good real world experience. Far too many go more or less straight into politics from university, and it's been very bad for the country.

It's sort of irrelevant now whether she lied or no, she's an absolutely terrible C of E who has tanked the U.K. economy in three months. Policies like the IHT on farms and family businesses is likely to do lasting damage.

Also the YABU / YANBU choice you give is a great example of the "when did you stop beating your wife" fallacy.

This is a very revealing post.

There are far too many politicians who know nothing expect Westminster, following the student politics, party worker, advisor, MP route. And we all remember the calibre of people who ran the student union ;)

The city is worried about growth. Growth appears to be stalling, but that could just be because the governments messaging has been so negative since it took power or it could be because the budget changes make growth unlikely. Probably both - the UK is not an attractive place to invest, but let’s see how it pans out for the UK over the next 6 months. I have been out of the UK for most of the time since the election, and it doesn’t matter whether you are in Europe, the US or Asia, when the conversation turns to the UKs economic prospects the consensus is pretty negative.