Rachel Reeves’ alleged CV embellishments leave the PM between a rock and a hard place - Jayne Dowle

It’s never a good idea to be economical with the truth, especially if your ambition is to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. The row over Rachel Reeves and her CV must have put her boss – amid rumours of a pre-Christmas Cabinet reshuffle – in a dilemma.

Would he, could he, should he, sideline the MP for Leeds West and Pudsey, the first woman in history to head the Treasury, as Downing Street hastily covers her back and incandescent Tories bay for blood?

The Prime Minister has been off globetrotting again this week, handily putting healthy distance between himself and the flak, but he must face a few uncomfortable home truths.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In Opposition, Labour made much of its ambition to do things differently to the Tories, to reinstate a contract of trust between the public and politicians.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during the Financial and Professional Services Dinner, in the Egyptian Hall of Mansion House, in the City of London. PIC: Isabel Infantes/PA WireChancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during the Financial and Professional Services Dinner, in the Egyptian Hall of Mansion House, in the City of London. PIC: Isabel Infantes/PA Wire
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during the Financial and Professional Services Dinner, in the Egyptian Hall of Mansion House, in the City of London. PIC: Isabel Infantes/PA Wire

It would be very wrong of Keir Starmer to presume that the hastily rejigged CV of his Chancellor hasn’t made an impact on voters, many of whom might well be struggling to secure their own job, finding themselves at the mercy of unforgiving recruitment algorithms.

A small error here, an oversight there, a fact that doesn’t stand up to cross-checking, and it’s curtains for the next step in certain careers. Would you trust a doctor who fudged their clinical experience, or a solicitor who made errors over their own work history?

Surely one of the most important offices of state should be subject to serious scrutiny. What was Reeves thinking, when she apparently exaggerated her experience as an economist, plus other embellishments, to enhance her track record?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The wonder is that the questionable entries on her LinkedIn profile had managed to get this far without previously being called into question, particularly by ex-colleagues, or parliamentary opponents.

Perhaps the world of banking – sorry – economics, is not as backbiting as other spheres. I know for sure that journalists who big themselves up with spurious accolades are rapidly called out by rivals.

It took a report, published by the political blog Guido Fawkes on November 15, to bring the matter to light.

The report claimed that Reeves had been wrong to suggest that she worked as an economist for the Bank of Scotland between 2006 and 2009 before leaving to seek parliamentary election. Her LinkedIn profile was subsequently tweaked to reflect that she in fact spent three years in retail banking at Halifax, the Bank of Scotland’s parent company.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Reeves also stands accused of exaggerating how long she spent working at the Bank of England. Speaking to Stylist magazine in 2021, the Chancellor said she had spent a decade working as an economist at the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street and “loved it”.

It was not the only time she made such a claim. In a video from September 2022, she said: “I worked at the Bank of England for the best part of a decade.”

And last year, in one of a series of posts highlighting her credentials on X, formerly Twitter, she said: “As a former Bank of England economist, I know what it will take to get Britain’s economy back on track.” I admit, I was actually quite swayed by that one.

However, her LinkedIn profile states that she only worked for the Bank of England for just over six years, with a start date of September 2000 and an end date of December 2006.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It also clarifies that she spent 18 months across 2002 and 2003 on secondment at the British Embassy in Washington DC, as the second secretary in the economic division. The first year she spent at the Bank of England was during her time as a post-graduate economics student at the London School of Economics in the international economic analysis division.

Hope that is all clear now. Of course, the counter-argument is that should a few little ‘adjustments’ really matter? LinkedIn can be a shark pool at the best of times; my bigger question is what was the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing on there in the first place?

Talk about making matters worse. As the fall-out of the ‘black hole Budget’ rumbles on, with farmers marching on Westminster and major retailers issuing dire warnings of job losses and store closures due to the rise in employer National Insurance contributions, questions are still being asked about the veracity of claims relating to the Conservatives’ so-called fiscal shortfall.

The Chancellor is already on a sticky wicket and people are calling for her resignation. Starmer would look hasty if he made any sudden moves to shift her sideways. Talk about a rock and a hard place. Our government must do better.

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1754
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice