I gather today is Rachel Reeves' birthday. I am sure it is a total coincidence that this appeared on the BBC website today:
There are occasions when all I can say is read it. That's not least because the BBC can take the libel risk. After all, why should I?
Three things do, however, emerge.
The first is that Rachel Reeves had nothing like the career in banking that she likes to claim she had.
The second is that there can be reasonable doubts about her professional conduct in the past.
And third, she might have an unusual relationship with the concept of truth.
But more important than those issues, from a political perspective, is why is this story surfacing again now? It's been around for a while. It's also been known for some time that Reeves was not really a banker at HBOS and managed complaints, which is a role far removed from economics, whilst her role at the Bank of England was decidedly junior. The story about her plagiarism in her book is also very well known. So, in that case, who has it in for her?
The likelihood that the Tories have successfully placed his is very low. They are far too hopeless to do that, and no journalist feels any need to pander to them.
So, has Morgan McSweeney had enough?
Or, more likely, is it the Cabinet? If she will not budge on her failing fiscal rule, have they decided to budge her out instead?
I don't know, but I would put my money (if I was a gambler) on the last. I suspect the Cabinet are fed up with jumping through hoops to keep Reeves happy. Are her days numbered? We can hope so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you, Richard.
Let’s not forget the Yorkshire family that helped her get a safe seat.
Assuming Ms Reeves is replaced. Is no steer Keir and whoever is the new chancellor likely to discover ” yes, we can afford to do it”
Or is the cunning removal plan first stage in remove no steer Keir?
Good question….
Conventional wisdom says Darren Jones
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Jones
(Blairite, usual “parachute” row about being imposed on CLP)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labour-bristol-mp-accused-of-spying-on-local-members-in-reselection-row
So I wouldn’t expect a sudden conversion to MMT, although he might use sleight of hand on the fiscal rules.
If only they would sack the vandal at the BoE…
Both excellent questions John
Her academic qualifications (PPE then a Masters in Economics) go some way to claiming sufficient training as an Economist, certainly more than most of us. However, that does tend to lead to the question of if that’s her specialty, and she’s that bad at it, then what exactly is she good at?
It’s not as if she succeeded in becoming an MP on her first or second try, either, and an all-women shortlist helped her gain nomination to a safe seat where she lost nearly half the previous majority in gaining the seat. Since she’s promoted ideas around withdrawal of welfare which have sometimes been seen as ‘tougher than Tories’ (as Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2013), she very much represents the ‘right’ of the Labour party.
Since Labour is seen to have abandoned its roots and shifted too far to the left, perhaps her track record of dishonesty, her track record of failure, and her track record of pushing the party to the right should be noted and for Rachel to leave another role by ‘voluntary redundancy’?
Reeves – what can one say?
Everyone has the right to get on in life – even her – but if this is how she chooses to do it, and then there is the impact she is having, then its not on.
For me, too many Labour ministers are sub-par because they are nothing but avatars for their handlers and political funders. They are blank boards, up for sale so that capital can scribble what it likes on them.
Dire………………….
Spot on Pilgrim : “they are nothing but avatars for their handlers and political funders. They are blank boards, up for sale so that capital can scribble what it likes on them.”
I was a LP member in her constituency in Leeds. She clearly lied to members during the selection process as a candidate. She also dissembled for years after her election as an MP, the noxious views we now aware of not being aired at a local level at all.
More relevant are that Reeves was obviously groomed long before she became an MP (by whom is not known) for her role as ‘first female Chancellor’ and that she really is a bit dim and her social skills are learned not natural.
I’ve heard some people (two men actually) defend her from the ‘Rachel from accounts’ jibe by saying this comes from the right wing press which as well know, will mindlessly attack labour whatever it does, and that it is misogynist.
Then again, several women I know reckon she’s stupid. Hmmm ….
I have decided it is not misogynistic. The origin is clearly not gender based.
Mark Twain — ‘Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.’
Who was the mental titan that appointed her in the 1st place? Ostensibly, Starmer. This leaves the open question – who pulls his strings?
Stepping back from this: it is pathetic, a man that is at best mediocre – fit to run (sort of) the DPP – but a country?
His appointees, at very very best, ho hum, the sort or people that do the dumb stuff & yet here we are – they “run” the country.
Christ on a bike, I can think of 6 people (some commentators on this blog – self not included) who could make a better fist of things. & yet – here we are.
One of my collaborators (& one of the brightest people I have met) said: “the people that frighten me are those with little or no curiosity” – & I have a sense of a cabinet stuffed to the gunnels with those sort of people. The leaks on RR could well be – “she has to go”. Honestly? I don’t think she is a bad person, just somebody promoted way beyond her abilities/capacities.
We can do without the blasphemy thankyou.
Oh come on….
If your faiuth is that sensitive you need to ask about what you believe in
For the record, Jesus was a very angry man – and justifiably so
Jesus was condemned for blasphemy and then crucified. It’s a very dodgy business accusing people of blasphemy – it tends to produce a lot of burnings, beheadings and murders – all happening right now. I find that “taking the name of God in vain” grates in my ears too but then I remember that the God I worship is big enough to look after himself. If he wasn’t, I wouldn’t be following him. When human beings get into theocracy it can get very unpleasant, whichever religion is involved – we have plenty of examples, including so-called followers of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity. Hard atheist materialists have their own god-free versions too.
With regard to Jesus’ anger, I’ve often wondered about a theology based around anger, and protest, and challenge to the system – there is plenty of it in the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, insurrection, treachery, rebellion, guerilla warfare, anger, disruption, refusal to recognise authority, turning over of tables, rude remarks about reigning monarchs and religious leaders (and that’s just the people Christians tend to see as the heroes – the last six categories all refer to Jesus himself). There seems to be a dearth of teaching in churches about that, although it is getting a little bit more attention nowadays, now that the establishment is not quite as in charge as it used to be. Nowadays as I re-read the Scriptures I tend to read through the eyes of the marginalised victims of injustice and poverty. It’s amazing the things I notice, that I never noticed years ago.
I like that
Evidence that she’s not as well qualified for the job as she likes to claim. Not many of us will be surprised by that.
she was also selected on an AWS shortlist, her incompetence reflects badly on every other AWS MP, and even those not selected that way, e.g. roseena allin-khan
She’s certainly getting a ‘kicking’ in the BBC articles – two of them – and they’ve dug up all sorts of ex-colleagues to dish the dirt. They’re really determined to get rid of her, aren’t they (should that be ‘he’)?
I wonder what the quid pro quo for their placement was.
Conspiracy theory Richard?
@BBC must have had a nod and a wink from some govt sources to ‘investigate’ . There are so many more important things they don’t investigate – including Labour’s donors.
Sacking Reeves would be a way of reversing ‘there is no money’ stance – but cant see them doing that .
Who knows ? We are all living in some kind of alternative universe.
Morgan McSweeney, probably in cahoots with Bliar.
“ And third, she might have an unusual relationship with the concept of truth.”
Is this not the critical qualification for any politician these days? I had thought it was unique, comparative advantage of US politicians, But apparently global competition is snapping at our heels
Probably nobody reads it but I posted this on Sir Kier Starmers you tube site the other day :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b9VLI9O_5s
Dear Sir will you advise President Trump that the UK will curtail USA military capability from UK in retaliation for a possible increase in tarifs?
By actively failing to ask critical questions of mainstream neoliberal/neoclassical equilibrium economics /politics to deliver better conditions for the mass of the general public you are helping to deliver a far right wing facist politics due to disilussionment … they, Reform could not be worse,,,,
You are searching for inappropriate growth *, hamstrung by self inflicted fiscal rules based on failed neoliberal equilibrium economics. The money for investment is available see MMT Modern Money Theory, Taxing Wealth Report 2024, changes in pension fund rules to create a large pool of money for the GND Green New Deal to tackle climate warming, NHS fund starvation, local public transport including trams, social services, etc.
Change tack LINO (Labour in Name Only) or as Biden found out you will just usher in far right wing fascists by not improving conditions for the masses.
To continue with austerity economics is a POLITICAL decision.
Contact heterodox economists for advice Steve Keen (The New Economics: A Manifesto), Richard Murphy (Taxing Wealth Report 2024, Green New Deal) , Richard Werner (Princes of the Yen), Michael Hudson (J is for Junk Economics) , Clara E. Mattei (How Economists Invented Austerity & Paved the Way to Fascism) , Abby Innes (Late Soviet Britain)
* climate change inflicting London airports extensions, too little, too late, too costly and too dangerous SMRs, investment from Private Equity asset strippers, NIC National Insurance Contributions that hit SME’s were most job growth occurs, ..
+++++++++
And followed with this after a critical comment :
I have not suggested that all those that disagree with me are fascists but those that control the parties have authoritarian tendencies that could usher in a return of fascism. It’s a slippery slope and the signs are strong eg. blame the other, concentration of power and wealth, disillusionment of the voters,…
The vast majority of the population can see that current neoliberal economic/political policies of the Uniparties or the Single Transferable Vote parties (Labour, Conservatives) and Reform and the Liberal Democrats have made life worse – real wages stagnant or declining, cost of artificial market based energy up, cost of the supermarket shop up, housing cost or rental up, essential services – water, energy, up, NHS costs up, subsidised profits for privatised services up…. i.e. declining standards of living for the vast majority. Neoliberal economics – market good, small government, libertarian ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society society, Hayek, Friedman et al was supposed to deliver growth… well it has not ..pre 70s growth 3 %, after 1,5 %.
Mainstream neoliberal economists/advisors put their head in the sand when faced with empirical facts… they ignore the contradictions.
As I have said there needs to a change in mainstream economic and political policies and the reinstatement of the left to the labour party at least with a broad church there could be a change of tack. Or is there enough support for a new left coalition that would tackle voting reform i.e. proportional representation STV that would ensure a fairer, more representative democracy and then economic reform?
Current neoliberal/neoclassical equilibrium economic/political policies are just continuing austerity economics … there is no, to little private investment, so public investment is required.
So what do you suggest?
1
Thanks
My money’s on McSweeney. Via a “leaky” Cabinet mouthpiece. A reshuffle is apparently in the offing, with Lisa Nandy supposedly to be culled…but a focus group may have been consulted, and Reeves’ unpopularity mentioned. As no one within five miles of Starmer’s Cabinet seems capable of thinking for themselves, who knows?
I reckon Robotic Rachel’s programming has been altered, either by accident or design. Some vital chip is malfunctioning deep in the electronic bowels of her CPU. That has caused her speaker unit to disconnect from the hard disc drive issued by Labour High Command to all members of Cabinet. The tragic result is an inability to construct a sentence without the word “growth”; used increasingly as an adjective. Hence her monotone delivery and unexpected yaps of “ Growth! Growth! Growth!”
The question is – who programmed McSweeney?
Do not pass go.
Do not collect £200.
Please close the door on the way out.
Of course she’ll just be replaced by yet another lackey.
Yesterday’s editorial in the Guardian is pretty much on the money (pun intended). A rare case of MSM offering a serious critique of “economics as normal”. More please!
I read that yesterday and my first thought was the complete lack of experience in macro economics that would have come in handy for her current role. I also noted the post grad in economics and concluded she has been indoctrinated in the conventional (mythical) economic theory that doesn’t bear any relationship to the real world, particular with regard to government spending and the creation of money. The old expression, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, is particularly applicable in her case. In fact, I’m coming to the conclusion that anyone with an economics degree is poorly qualified to be the chancellor of the exchequer.
Whilst I find the Rachel from Accounts comments extremely sexist, it’s clear she has never held the strategic managerial posts implied and has been much more a middle manager pen pusher. I think neither her or Kier are that popular within the Labour ranks so it could be anyone. And it’s clear she needs to go asap. So will she jump or will she be pushed?
Colin from accounts was clearly not sexist. I can’t see how this is, but I thought about it.
Whilst she is really bad, it’s not because she’s a woman. There are plenty of women capable of being a good Chancellor and several men who have been pretty awful Chancellors. But her much delayed budget was spectacularly awful, especially the NI rises that hit the low wage economy really badly.
There is nothing about the nickname that says she is bad because she is a woman. It says she is bad because she is from accounts.
Ooops!
Grauniad delivers another swipe (from the right, though, note their comments about immigration).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/13/the-guardian-view-on-britains-broken-economy-thats-your-bloody-gdp-not-ours
Summat is definitely UP!
(& it isn’t Reeves’s approval rating.)
Maybe Rachel is being lined up as the ‘fall guy’ (girl) for the disastrous Budget. Whoever concocted that load of crap, certainly never studied economics very seriously.
The solution surely would be to persuade Ed Balls to return to politics via a by election in a safe labour seat and appoint him Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ed might be persuaded to do this with the chance of succeeding the toolmaker’s son in the not to distant future.
Just a thought!!