Rachel Reeves fictitious CV

Maybe you should check your facts.

I think anybody who has an MSc in Economics from The London School Of Economics is perfectly entitled to call themself an economist.

I qualified as a teacher and guess what - I taught children for nearly thirty years. A qualification is one thing; using it and gaining proper experience is quite another.

Didn’t Mick Jagger attend there?

Yes it's interesting to read, freely available to anyone. Especially from an ex colleague, apparently sacked from her complaints Manager job, as she was telling fibs re Dr and dentist appointment, when she was actually was doing Labour party work. She'll brazenly ignore all of this, and carry on decimating the working man, therefore the country.

She is Labour.

For goodness sake don’t depress me any more. Mark Carney has endorsed her and that encouraged me to consider her reliable.

'Economist' is not a regulated title. The whole thing is simply Tory mudslinging.

Labour slung more than enough mud at the Conservatives Grantanow. What goes around comes around.

madalene

Labour slung more than enough mud at the Conservatives Grantanow. What goes around comes around.

Labour was perfectly justified in slinging mud at the tories, they managed to bring the country to its knees over their 14 years in power.

There are good economists and bad economists. Unfortunately, Reeves is one of the latter...

Maybe some people think that it’s justified to sling mud at RR for her untruths and embroidered truths.

As you say, RR is a bad economist.
Her budget will do nothing for growth or to aid the economy.

Grantanow

'Economist' is not a regulated title. The whole thing is simply Tory mudslinging.

The whole thing is simply Tory mudslinging.
No, it's not.

She simply is not any good at her job and does not think of long-term consequences and she is proving that with the decisions she makes.

madalene

Maybe some people think that it’s justified to sling mud at RR for her untruths and embroidered truths.

I'd rather they criticised her for her bad economics. Her 'untruths' and 'embroidered truths wouldn't matter if she was any good at the job. But she's not. She's just yet another Chancellor in hock to the wealthy financial establishment.

Or perhaps to the Treasury, which is the most powerful government department, whose primary function is to block anything but the most orthodox economic policies. And as it is 'orthodoxy' which has brought us to where we are now this is not a Good Thing.

Maybe some people think that it’s justified to sling mud at RR for her untruths and embroidered truths

I have a 1st in psychology but I dont pretend to be a clinical psychologist. I have an MA and a Ph.D. in human computer interaction but that doesnt make me a programming ghuru.

If RR scores any more own goals all this will come back to haunt her. No pensioners, business owners, farmers etc wil be voting labour next time. But fear not, they will have the support of train drivers.

madalene

As you say, RR is a bad economist.
Her budget will do nothing for growth or to aid the economy.

Well, to be honest, madalene, no budgets over the past decade and a half have aided the economy.

People don't seem to understand how powerful economic theory can be when it is applied to governing a country. We abandoned our post war Keynesianism, which saw growth and declining inequality, in the late 1970s and have been declining ever since.

I've no idea whether RR is a good economist or not, because that isn't my area of expertise. We will have to wait and see.
However she has shown no foresight in the setting up of her new regulations, many of which are creating havoc and confusion.
For example, her guidance on the 20% vat on school fees was inadequate, and HMRC is in real chaos. Schools are having difficulty even registering for vat and their numbers for the scheme have yet to be allocated. Invoices need to be prepared now, but advisors at RR's office seem unable to come up with the answers, and the whole system is in disarray.
It seems to me RR is very good at telling us about her new plans, and introducing them at great speed, but very poor at having any idea how to implement them. I give her a 4/10 for organisation and groundwork.

It seems to me RR is very good at telling us about her new plans, and introducing them at great speed, but very poor at having any idea how to implement them. I give her a 4/10 for organisation and groundwork

9/10 for presentation but she made me remember a slogan I once saw on t-shirts:

"Your lips are moving but all I hear is Blah, Blah, Blah".

Allira To add - your lips are moving so all I hear are lies!

Rachel Reeves may call herself an economist, but she is a poor politician.

a liar to her core

Ladyleftfieldlover

Maybe you should check your facts.

Maybe you should check your facts - as Reeves has changed her CV removing the word "economist"

she has an MSc in Economics from the London School of Economics and worked for the Bank of England, that's more than many chancellors. The reason the Tory owned press is so cross is because wealthy people are being asked to pay more now and they don't like it. You can't have decent public services without money and many wealthy people have got away with minimal taxes for years so Labour are asking those with the 'broadest shoulders' to pay more, just like they said pre-election

It was certainly promoted that she was a banker, it seems that she did work for a bank but customer service rather than actual banking.
I do question her implementation of the plans a lot is idealogical like the private schools, I’m not expecting a positive effect on the economy.