Rachel Reeves suffers with the nickname ‘Rachel from Accounts'. Only it looks like her own accounting has not been that good, and nor is her CV all she claims it to be. But is the real story that her colleagues want her out?
This is the audio version: I have no idea why the player will not download this morning, but if you follow the link, you will get it.
This is the transcript:
There is a nickname for Rachel Reeves, which did apparently originate in the Treasury in London, which is that she is ‘Rachel from Accounts'. Now, I wouldn't like to use that term normally, but it is quite humorous because it does of course come from the Australian comedy series ‘Colin from Accounts', which is well worth watching if you haven't seen it. But there is something about it which also reflects precisely who Rachel Reeves is.
She is, after all, completely obsessed with balancing the books. To refer to her in that context as ‘Rachel from Accounts' does not seem to be totally inappropriate. I think it's almost fair. But at the same time, I have a question to ask. And that is, how long will she be ‘Rachel from Accounts'? Or, in other words, when will it be that she's ‘Rachel from the backbenches' again?
My point is this. It's very clear that something is happening at present with regard to Rachel Reeves. When the BBC decides to highlight a report that first came to light last November in the Sunday Times about Rachel Reeves' CV, her expense claims and the rather odd relationship which she has to the truth, and clearly is confident that the claims that they're making are entirely appropriate, somebody, somewhere has very clearly got it in for Rachel Reeves and wants her out. Now, I don't know precisely who that is, but I can summarise what the claims are.
Perhaps the most serious of the claims that she's made about her own career, which is obviously grossly wrong, is that she did for some time claim that she had spent the best part of a decade working at the Bank of England.
It transpires that the best part of a decade is 5.5 years. Now, I don't know what you think, but by and large, when I'm trying to work out what is a decade, I don't take the number in the middle of that range – 5 - and round it up to 10 and say I've worked for the best part of a decade somewhere. In fact, I'd say I'd worked for five or six years at the Bank of England.
I think that would be honest, and straightforward, and truthful. But, Rachel Reeves repeatedly made that claim, that she was at the Bank of England for the best part of a decade, in stump speeches and elsewhere. And that is just straightforwardly a misrepresentation of the truth.
There are other questions that have arisen, because it is very clear that at some point, another of her employers, before she became an MP - HBOS, the bank that collapsed during the course of the financial crisis and was saved by the Lloyds Banking Group - did question her probity. There was an inquiry into her conduct and the conduct of two other employees at that bank in the department that she worked for.
Now, Rachel Reeves would like you to think that she was a senior economist when she worked in the banking sector. Actually, she worked in the complaints department at HBOS - not quite what you would expect from a senior banker, let's be totally honest. And not something she's ever been keen to trumpet. But it's very clear that the inquiry did lead to serious questions about her misuse of a corporate credit card and the potential private benefit that she got from it.
There are also questions that have been raised, apparently, about the number of days she took off going to medical appointments that appeared to remarkably coincide with commitments to the Labour Party.
And we do know that when she was an MP, she had her MP's credit card suspended as well, with a debt of over £4,000 on it, which was for what were deemed to be personal items that should not have gone on that card. In other words, she has been a little lax when it comes to this issue of expenses. And she isn't too keen to talk about that.
Rachel Reeves wants to talk about fiscal rules.
She wants to talk about being tight with the money.
She loves to refer to her mother checking off the bank statement.
But it doesn't look as though she was too good at checking her credit card statements when it comes down to it. Because quite clearly, something went wrong with those, twice.
And her employers noticed. Rachel Reeves' career, then, is not exactly precisely what she would like to represent it to be. Any more than the book that she wrote about women economists was a resounding success because it turned out that quite large parts of that were copied off Wikipedia.
Now, does this matter? Well, my answer is yes, of course it does. Rachel Reeves is absolutely inextricably linked to Keir Starmer in the management of the current government of the UK. He got in saying that she was going to be the first female chancellor in this revolutionary new position as a woman looking at the country's finances.
But now we know that she isn't quite all she was cracked up to be before she got to this role.
Just as much as we know that she's not all she was cracked up to be since she's been in this role.
And again, I make the point very clearly that her banking career wasn't quite as she represented. It wasn't as long at the Bank of England as she claimed, and she was during much of the time that she was there, very junior.
And while she was at HBOS, she wasn't an economist looking at the banking system. She was managing complaints. And there's nothing wrong with managing complaints. They're really important. They should happen. But it isn't quite what she'd like you to think she was. She wasn't effectively a banker at all. She was a customer liaison manager.
And that's important, as I say. Whether she's telling the truth is what matters because she's now telling us that she is telling the truth about the country's finances and that we're having a difficult time and that, therefore, she's had to impose £22 billion of extra costs on business, which are going to impose costs on them, which are going to result in lower employment.
She is deflating the economy as a result.
Households are suffering as a consequence.
And we have to ask the reasonable question, does she really know whether her books are balancing as a result?
Is she on top of the detail, which is really necessary, if you are a Chancellor?
Does she even understand that detail?
And is she taking her colleagues with her? Because when we wonder who put this story up to the BBC, and I bet somebody did, because that's the way these things work, who was it?
Was it an employee at HBOS, as some suggest it might have been?
Was it somebody at the Bank of England, as others have suggested it could be?
Or was it one of her cabinet colleagues?
There are very strong rumours that the cabinet are not deeply in love with Rachel Reeves right now because they say, quite reasonably, Labour has a choice. It can meet the promises that all the other members of the cabinet made to the electorate in the Labour Party manifesto. Or it could meet the promise that Rachel Reeves made to the electorate in that manifesto to balance the books.
Frankly, the electorate couldn't give a damn about balancing the books. It doesn't understand why it's important, but deep down, it probably has a sense that it isn't, and they would be entirely right to think that's the case. But they do know about the supply of education and healthcare and social care and justice and everything else that's fundamental to their well-being, and they know that Rachel Reeves is preventing that.
And so do the Cabinet. And my suspicion is that this is a quiet coup going on here. The Cabinet have already had enough of Rachel Reeves. ‘Rachel from Accounts' is annoying them a great deal. They're not willing to receive the messages anymore.
My suspicion is that somebody is trying to get ‘Rachel from Accounts' transferred to another department.
Or to the backbenches.
And, I very strongly suspect that the more questions that are asked, the more likely it is that she's on her way out of the Treasury, destined either for another cabinet position, much less consequential or to the backbenches because she'll be in a huff.
If she goes, Labour might have a chance of succeeding.
That is the key point here. And that is, I think, what those cabinet ministers know.
It's becoming a case of ‘Rachel or us', ‘Rachel or the Labour Party', and ‘Rachel or losing in 2029'. And they're opting for the chance of winning in 2029. And that's why the questions about Rachel Reeve's career are on the agenda right now.
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!
I tend to get most of my news via the Guardian website, so I dont see her ‘perform’ BUT she seems to have the air of Liz Truss Light ie not up to the job but not in the OTT way Truss was/is
It seems to me that a half way decent chancellor needs to be a Political ‘Big Hitter’ in the way Gordon Brown is and she is certainly not.
I guess the question is then, who would be a better replacement? and is there any way of effectively lobbying for that to happen?
The replacement will be as neoliberal
I have never in my life been foolish enough to lie on my CV. Apart from anything else, the chances of being caught are far too great. Anyone who does exaggerate their past is not only of dubious morality, they are also of dubious judgement — dumb, in fact.
Surely Rachel from Accounts cannot survive this double stain on her reputation. Still, it does provide some explanation of why she is doing such a bad job as Chancellor.
I understand she is relying on the “it was a mistake made by an assistant” excuse, to account for the CV error. So what material was the assistant quoting from when they got the job title wrong?
1. Pull the other one Rachel, it’s got fiscal rules on it.
2. When I was a lad, bosses didn’t blame assistants, they carried the can themselves. Government ministers used to do the same and would resign on principle. Now everything gets blamed on the intern.
3. I don’t find it credible that she didn’t CHECK her public LinkedIn CV, after someone else had drafted it. This is the same Labour party that can expel you for liking the wrong sort of social media post ten years ago (if you’re a leftie anti-Zionism type). After all, I’m not allowed to blame an accountant for mistakes on my tax form and I have to sign a statement to that effect. Doesn’t getting a house in 11 Downing St. come with similar caveats?
4. Irrespective of the above, it wasn’t an assistant who made stump speeches saying she’d spent the best part of 10 years at the BoE, when it was actually 5.5. That makes her either a liar, or VERY bad at arithmetic. Either way, unfit for being Chancellor, no matter how at home such a person might feel in the toxic Labour party that was revealed in the Forde report.
Much to agree with.
I hope you are right, Richard
2 BBC News stories about her past and 2 critical Guardian articles this week including at editorial level. That is definitely not coincidence.
The Guardian editorial is arguing for increased government spending, and challenging the obsession with private sector led growth as well as highlighting growing equality, and the big gap between “GDP” and real life (for omnibus passengers).
If only it hadn’t taken them so long to catch up with reality!
Agreed
I meant of course “growing INequality”.
The BBC has limited editorial resources, especially of investigative journalism. Bearing in mind the potential pushback these well researched articles must have been green lit at a senior level. They seem to be designed to set the new adenda.
Ground is being prepared. Is Reeves the ultimate target?
And now an Observer article, effectively telling us she has ZERO options (or rather 3 “impossible” ones – taxes up , spending down, or break the -iron clad – fiscal rules. Phillip Inman & Toby Helm).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable
Toby & Phillip don’t seem to be able to count above 3, they must be using a neoliberal abacus, one provided by the mighty unbuckable markets.
I wish they’d put more space between the lines in their articles, then I might be able to read between them, & work our what they’re up to.
Why would any Labour cabinet minister worry about breaking their promises? Starmer’s done little else BUT break promises since he was elected party leader back in 2020. Why change now?
There will be a blog on this soon….
Rachel’s transition to the backbenches would be welcome, offering the opportunity for getting someone in the role who understands macroeconomics and works for the common good. But what are the chances of that?
Low
I have suggested before Miatta Fanbulleh. She’s a proper economist and does understand the fiat monetary system. She is currently a junior minister. However, I have also suggested before Torsten Bell who Richard reckons is “deeply neoliberal”, with which I disagree. I think he would be more likely because he enjoys a much higher profile and is the sort of big hitter Starmer would be comfortable with. More likely, though, it will be one of the inner circle already in the cabinet. Just a reshuffle of the existing crowd.
I would prefer her to Bell, who is, as I have said, deeply neoliberal, as is the Resolution Foundation he came from.
But Blair wants Darren Jones.
What I see at this particular level of government and/or management is that the act of getting rid of her will not help people’s perceptions of the rest of the party or Starmer – so there is a risk to the leadership – who appointed her – of undermining their credibility. So, as you say Richard, she may only well be demoted or knowing Starmer, he will let something or someone else do the dirty work to give him the excuse.
The whole thing though looks a bit ‘hollow’. And in Labour’s case – well, where is the different politics they promised? All we have got is the same as before with a bit of tinkering.
Incidentally, I took part in a training day for our democratic services department at the council which was very interesting.
There was a lot of emphasis on the officers being ‘experts’ and the acknowledgment of politicians as leaders who relied on our expertise and judgement to take decisions but were also vulnerable to how popular those decisions were with voters.
This leads me to consider my point about ‘political avatarism’. Maybe we should stop talking to the politicians and talk to those advising them and writing their speeches? In fact, why not be honest about it and vote for the advisors? What a queer system we have – never FPTP.
Something else also took me by surprise. For report writing we were told to avoid politically loaded terms like ‘austerity’. I baulked at this and was moved to protest but kept quiet and mused over the fact that austerity was acknowledged as a fact but should not be used in report writing.
Does that not just about sum up where we are these days? A denial of a truth, which we know creates a vacuum for other narratives to fill it – like immigration and we wonder how an outfit like ‘Reform’ gets traction?
I have to say that overall, our politics is failing because our society that makes and provides those people as politicians has failed or broken down already. The quality of the people put forward – especially for high office – is low.
I still describe myself as ‘post democratic’ – there is little to believe in or put one’s faith in these days. I am un-moored to any of it and will have to see out my days passively watching it all turn to merde and thank god my days on the earth are fewer than what they were.
Pathetic.
Some (eg Woman’s Hour) have suggested there is a hint of misogyny about the ‘Rachel from Accounts’ moniker.
But BBC wouldn’t have run with this week’s re-revelations if some inside Labour hadn’t given the nod.
Isn’t Starmer hitched to Reeves ? It seems beyond imagining that MP’s would get rid of them both.
And least of all – would the party suddenly embrace ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’ ?
I don’t think so.
I have asked feminist women about that nickname
They cannot see a way is it’s misogynist
Isn’t it misogynistic if it’s used because she’s a woman, and not misogynistic if it’s used because she’s not up to the job?
If it was a bloke named Colin, who was as good as Rachel, would he be called ‘Colin from Accounts’?
Why not?
And don’t you realise, as I explicitly make clear, there is a joke being riffed here , which happens to have a male theme?
How can that be misogynistic?
@Robin et al
A brief reflection on the things Corbyn was smeared with…?
He made jam (if he’d been female…?).
He grew vegetables.
His mother knitted his jumpers (fashion shaming)
His scruffy clothes (more fashion shaming – a “scruffy” M&S coat, ironically from a Jewish heritage retailer).
He “danced” to the Cenotaph.
A “paid KGB agent”.
His “communist” cap portrayed in that famous red-tinted Kremlin mock-up backdrop on Newsnight.
The man in Army uniform on TV threatening a military coup if Corbyn became PM.
His photo used in army target practice.
I’ve left out the really nasty ones around antisemitism, terrorism and Putin sympathies.
Unless the first UK’s first female chancellor is supposed to be immune from criticism entirely, because of her being female, then IMHO she’s getting a VERY easy ride, in terms of recent criticisms, given the things she has done, and given the fact she is in the 2nd highest office in the UK government and is actively wrecking peoples lives as we speak and will get a payoff bigger than my salary ever was, on top of her £90k MP’s salary, when she leaves the government.
Can I say that I have no wish to defend Reeves. I’ve pointed out her errors to my MP (newly elected Labour) on several occasions and think she probably deserves her nickname.
However, I have a feeling the nickname started as way to liken her to that annoying young accounts assistant who is always chasing up the monthly expenses claim forms. Call her whatever you like, but please only insult her for her incompetence not her sex!
I don’t think anyone in this blog uses the nickname to demean her as a woman, but others probably do.
To be clear, I believe Reeves has been promoted well above her ability and should be replaced by someone competent. It’s unlikely but I can live in hope!
As for Jeremy Corbyn, I voted for him in the first election – I paid £3 for the privilege. I was stunned by the backlash from the media and Labour insiders. I hoped he would move the Overton window to the left and then step down for someone else to lead. Instead he was shafted and Labour is now indistinguishable from Reform!
This is pretty boring.
What the heck jas her sex got to do with the joke?
Precisely nothing.
You are makimng up stuff that is not there.
And the joke began with a male name.
It’s decidely gender neutral.
And before repeating he joke I checked it through with a decidely feminmist woman who knows all about discrimination – my wife and partner in Tax Research LLP. She could see nothng misogynist in it.
I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest. I only made the point that the nickname could be sexist. I didn’t infer that was the case on this blog – I’m sure it isn’t – but, elsewhere, it could be used to demean Reeves because she’s female.
No offense was intended and I apologize if I have caused any.
Finally, I do understand that the ‘from Accounts’ was popularised in a very good Australian comedy.
Sorry – maybe I over-reacted to you
I just don’t think I am using it in any misogynistic way – and I thought about it
I agree RobertJ, criticism of Labour’s leaders is mild compared to the frenzied character shredding that Corbyn endured and I can’t see anything misogynistic in “Rachel from Accounts”, if anything it sounds jokey and affectionate. What happened to Corbyn must stand as a terrible warning to Labour politicians who are tempted to break away from the dominant neoliberal culture. How wonderful it would be if neoliberal sceptics would find their courage, to make a stand. For every UK voter who would support Farage and the rush to the extreme right I think their are two who would support a leader who stood up for integrity in government and was critical of the distortion and imbalance caused by too much wealth and power in too few hands and the influence of wealthy lobbyists on policy, but where this leader will come from I don’t know. For Starmer et al their agenda was already set solid before they took office and they are unlikely to try to break free of constraints and conditions that they have accepted willingly, in exchange for power
I don’t understand your last paragraph. What does gender have to do with her incompetence?
Let’s be honest everyone including the social care sector have complained about the effect the increase in employers tax will have on employment etc. A Labour government should be making it easier to employ people not more expensive which will result in unemployment and lower growth. I always believe every government makes mistakes but big mistakes loses power and if Labour continue with increased employers tax Labour will lose in 2029. It’s obvious Reeves hasn’t the economic know how to understand this and should be either sacked or told scrap this silly tax,and maybe replace them with closing the tax relief on pensions for higher tax earners.