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.

And it’s a couple of weeks since the budget. That ‘flatlining’ is likely due to uncertainty, as often happens when something is changing. It’s quite self evidently not due to the budget.

Thank you, @hooksbell . This is an important post and shows that OP’s intentions were questionable at best.

I have not needed LinkedIn so I was unable to check out her original claim. Your post about RR’s LinkedIn is consistent with my understanding of her CV. I am very glad it still shows her work as an Economist for the BoE.

Presumably some who have posted in derogatory terms about RR’s guilt over changing her CV do have access to LinkedIn.

Posted prematurely…..

I think your post ends any claim to objectivity that may attempt to make

Why ‘self evidently’?

Consumer confidence also plummeted in that time period.

Clavinova even though I am not a Conservative Party supporter (Johnson etc were a disaster for the uk and the key reason why we are where we are), Hunt was the only politician on either side who gave me some confidence that slowly, we might stand a chance of getting out of this mess - at least he had run and successfully sold on his own business.

How can economic performance before the budget be caused by the budget? Honestly.

Tbh, it isn't up to us. The government will know, it isn't like they won't be checking references etc.

Of course it can. Do you recall the press conference Starmer gave early on. And then the long wait for the budget

If you look up the CCI for September you’ll see the impact. It’s clear to anyone

Why did parents of privately educated children get upset before the budget? Honestly.

The budget didn’t do it. Confidence may have been shaken a bit by Starmer’s speech, but there was no budget so it couldn’t have caused it. Nobody knew what was in it - as can be seen by all the catastrophising on here about what would definitely be in it (but wasn't) before budget day. There may have been some economic effect caused by a change of government, or by the messaging of the new government. It was not the non-existent-a- that-point budget. I can’t believe you are trying to suggest something not revealed until October was responsible for changes in August.
It’s just silly to try to argue it was.

Because there was a manifesto commitment which affected them - and even then there was uncertainty about when.
The budget did not cause economic effects before it was revealed. Caution because of a definite change in government direction, yes. But you can not argue the effectiveness or otherwise of a budget based on economic figures from before it was revealed.

I said the economy stagnated from half way through the year, around the GE.

Of course people’s behaviour changes as they anticipate the budget, the economic indicators such as CCI have been clear leading up to the growth figures.

We’ll see what happens but so far they have managed to dampen growth

I don’t think even Reeves and Starmer tried to spin it as good as some have tried here

@EasternStandard you've just said exactly what I said when you were arguing with me. Except they haven’t ‘managed’ that. It was a reaction to uncertainty. Let’s see what certainty now does.

@cardibach I assume you don’t own a business? As someone who does I can say with certainty that the doom mongering from both Starmer and Reeves pre budget did have an effect. We held off buying the larger premises we need and recruiting the associated additional staff. And we weren’t the only ones.

PPs aren’t arguing about the effectiveness of the budget, they are arguing about the effectiveness of the Labour government on the economy.

I really hate the constant implication on here that if you don’t own a business you can’t know anything.
Plus you are also agreeing with me. Change and uncertainty caused the flatline, nit the budget.
Could all the anti Labour types stop a)being condescending and b)changing the argument to try to prove themselves right?

If uncertainty has such a negative impact, then why did the new Labour government not address that?

They are now. They weren’t before. When it’s pointed out that it’s ridiculous to blame a budget that only just happened for stuff months ago they all start claiming they never blamed the budget. And talk of the budget was just a distraction from being proved wrong about Reeves’ LinkedIn which does, in fact, still say she was an economist at the BoE. Because she was.
I will no longer be trying to argue with people who argue in bad faith like this.

So why wasn't it problematic for Sunak? and what caused these negative numbers for Sunak? didn't he want growth?

We've had pretty poor growth since 2008 and across Europe too, i just think its too soon to blame Labour for these low numbers, 12 or 18months time, then sure, if we see little improvement, then that will be the time to ask them more probing questions.

As the BOE said, Brexit has not helped the UK in this regard.

I like to try and be fair to whoever has just got into Govt & i was fair to Sunak too, though i did draw the line at Truss.

As for Reeves, she seems competent, has recognised the unfunded budgets and has addressed them, thats surely to be welcomed & her pension reforms seem to have gone down well too.

Why did they create the uncertainty?

Best case scenario sounds like it was a messaging error which took growth to stagnation

Worst case is policies will work against growth. Then they’ll have an issue and more ‘difficult decisions’ etc

The timing of the budget is part of how it has an impact.

Remember the speaker had to rebuke Reeves for spreading budget information in advance. So to say the budget only had an impact after the budget is disingenuous.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80lvy3lnn1o

This. I always thought that it’s civil servant types who actually come up with the ideas, crunch the figures. The politician may decide what’s acceptable and what’s not. But they’re kind of like a marketing/public face of the dept.

Budget info in advance is hardly a new thing. It's been standard for a few years now.

Right, so you don’t. I sometimes look at posts from teachers on here and wonder what they are moaning about? They get 12 weeks leave per year! But then I remember. I’m not a teacher, I’ve never done it, i couldn’t do it, it sounds really, really hard and stressful and actually? I don’t know a thing about it.

The doom mongering by Labour affected the economic decisions made by me for my business. That is a fact and one I very much doubt I am alone in.
The budget has not helped business and I fear an economic slump rather than the growth we all hope for. But I am not anti labour, nor am I an economist and I hope very much that am I wrong. I would be beyond delighted to see an improvement in public services, combined with economic growth for the country.