The Reeves CV – More Questions
I previously wrote a piece for the Daily Sceptic about Rachel Reeves’s career progression. In particular I looked at how and why she moved from being an economist at the centre of the economic action at the Bank of England (BoE) in London and Washington to what seems to have been an administrative job at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in Leeds and then left HBOS in 2009 after HBOS had collapsed, had been taken over by Lloyds and over 15,000 jobs were cut including around 460 at the Leeds office where Reeves had worked. From this I wondered whether Reeves had actually been ‘let go’ by both the BoE and HBOS rather than leaving voluntarily to further her career.
Following my Daily Sceptic article, I was contacted by a Daily Sceptic reader who had been doing a bit of digging and who suggested some further questions that could be asked about Rachel Reeves’s qualifications and career and whether she was actually the right person to serve as Britain’s Chancellor. So, here are some more questions to which we who pay Reeves’s generous salary, pension and expenses are possibly owed an answer.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Will the truth (whatever that is) set us free – or is Rachel Reeves one of those ‘limpet’ politicians that hold on for grim death resisting all calls for her resignation?
I suspect she is a limpet politician, one of many fouling the corridors of power. If she does go she will be back, rather like a bad penny perhaps..
My God she talks badly, the same adenoidal autistic delivery as 2t f##king kier.
As well as being charmless and thick, dishonest and not that graceful to look at, although to be fair most previous chancellors haven’t been potential muss world winners either…
What a train crash.
I think their vocal cords have been replaced with a doll’s sound box circa 1980 from ToysRus.
We can dig more deeply into her past but it’s probably unnecessary.
I think by now everybody knows: she made factually incorrect statements on he CV, grossly exaggerating her importance, achievements, experience and skills.
Six months into the role her lack of talent, incompetence and general misunderstanding of basic economic concepts have been clearly visible.
She is nothing more than a career politician, out of her depth.
However, the problem is that Labour is so devoid of any talent, even if they wanted to get rid of her, who would they choose to replace her?
Darren – the human zit?
Irrespective of her alleged qualifications and “experience” the bottom line is that she is a WEF appointment. The script she has been given is intended to destroy this country both industrially and economically, so far I would say she is bang on course. Her CV has more holes than a colander, deliberately of course.
Well DEI hire or not, Reeves has been placed in a position that is way beyond her capabilities and she consistently proves just how inept she is, not to mention she’s an outright fraud into the bargain. A bit similar to this guy, actually, who can’t even be said to be winging it. This is seriously cringe to watch;
”You won’t see this on mainstream news channels.
Insane of course. But this is the enforcement of ideology over everything else that we’ve been living with for years now.
Biden’s pick to lead the FAA was a DEI hire who couldn’t answer a single question about aviation.”
https://x.com/prwhittle/status/1885309757931552897
Cringeworthy indeed. Embarrassing and humiliating.
Prioritising DEI over a candidate’s capabilities and suitability for a role will always be a recipe for disaster. I can’t believe there were no better people for the post than Reeves, but at least if she makes a wrong call multiple people won’t lose their lives in an instant. And I’m seriously at a loss to see how employing people with severe intellectual disability or hearing/sight impairment is deemed “integral” to safe and efficient travel within the aviation industry. Just bizarre, really; ”The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actively recruiting workers who suffer “severe intellectual” disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website. “Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.” The initiative is part of the FAA’s “Diversity and Inclusion” hiring plan, which says “diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.” The FAA’s website shows the agency’s guidelines on diversity hiring… Read more »
“diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.”
And as Donald said ‘I don’t think so.’
Talk about a recipe for disaster.
Hopefully I’m never a passenger on a flight captained by a one armed, partially paralysed, schizophrenic, partially sighted, deaf dwarf.
That’s modern government.
Too many graduates, (and possibly hires? I really couldn’t say) and not enough engineers.
Real Engineers tend to be Graduates. The courses are challenging (at least the good ones!) and require a high level of intellectual ability, and work ethic. It seems the opposite of PPE? Of course when I did it University Degrees really meant something! I have met many more modern graduates and the level is a fraction of that required to do the job properly. That is another reason why Britain no longer is able to make anything!
It’s been removed unfortunately.
The CV or Not The CV? Looks like the classic grifter career pathway, drifting effortlessly from one post to another, without leaving anything of permanence behind other than disaffected colleagues.
Leaves past indiscretions conveniently buried, until the plum job comes along, with the Number 11 broom cupboard the only hiding place left. Someone please give advance notice to the IMF.
I imagine the IMF are eagerly awaiting Kneel’s call.
The timeline must be something like this:
In the 9 years 9 months from Sept 2000 to May 2010 (less the year she attended LSE, so 8 years & 9 months) she originally claimed to have spent 10 years at the BofE & 5 years at Halifax, that’s going some.
The BofE stint looks like 3 1/2 years + a year at LSE.
The story of Rachel Thieves so far is very similar to that of Elizabeth Holmes.
Yes and no. Holmes was peddling a holy grail (multiple blood tests in parallel from minimal sample), Thieves is peddling a holy fail. Unlike Holmes, whatever her failings Thieves is unlikely to end up behind bars.
Liz Holmes was/is at least quite toothsome.
Whatever her qualifications and experience, she’s supposedly a socialist and therefore in my book unsuitable for a role that is meant to improve prosperity.
Since when has a monkey ever had the qualifications which are appropriate for a high profile, senior governmental role?
She’s a monkey …. it’s the organ grinders who are destroying the economy and they’re doing it deliberately.
The left have always been better at promoting and over-promoting their own for about 100 years.
They give higher grades, higher praise and open more doors to their normally incompetent youth supporters while conservatives generally are much harder on their younger supporters. However, at some point the Peter Principle kicks in. In Reeve’s case that appears to have been in her early years at the BofE.
That voice. Exactly as I imagined. Yeaah, always suppawted Labour, yeaah. And nah oi’m gonna crack on an delivah…yeaah. Dad, gotus this gig. Always knew the roight fella to get stuff offof. Red’s always been ar favrite calour, ya see, yeaah. Them Foxes Glacier Mints? Reds were always me favrites. Yeaah. Lav Keir. Just lav im.
The simplest of economic models seems to elude Reeves. If you make employing people significantly dearer, businesses will employ fewer people. (The state sector won’t be bothered, obviously.) What did Reeves think the effects of her changes would be? Her number 2 actually said that business would have to ‘suck it up’.
A bit late but came across this last night on FB…funny ? not funny!
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18kjd4KMs2/