I’ve been more than slightly troubled by Rachel Reeves’s CV, and I’ve been wondering if she was ‘let go’ by one or even both of her main employers – the Bank of England (BoE) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). I don’t have much material to back up my suspicions, but sometimes in life, we find ourselves in situations where we have to make a judgement based on inadequate information and our experience. Having worked in almost 100 organisations in the private and public sectors across fifteen countries, and having been hired and fired several times in my less than distinguished career, I believe one can develop what our German friends, in their melodic language, call ‘fingerspitzengefühl’ (fingertips feeling) about certain situations. And that’s what I’ve tried to use for this article.
Let’s start with Rachel Reeves’s time at the BoE. According to PA Media Factcheck, the Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms. Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page (2000 to 2006). This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the U.K.’s central bank – and which Ms. Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms. Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there.
In a December 2005 paper, she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time.
Following her six years at the BoE, Reeves went to work for the bank HBOS in their Leeds office. From the little I’ve been able to find out, I believe the Leeds office dealt mainly with administrative issues rather than the type of intricate economic analysis Rachel Reeves would probably have done at the BoE. If I am correct, then a question arises: why would someone who had a successful career at the centre of the economic action at the BoE in London and Washington move to working in a mainly administrative office for a retail bank in Leeds? I’m sure Leeds is a wonderful town, but it doesn’t feel like the move from the BoE in London and Washington to HBOS in Leeds was part of a major career progression for an economic superstar who would one day become our Chancellor. In fact, it rather feels to me as if someone at the BoE had a quiet word with Rachel Reeves and suggested that there would be limited opportunities for her at the BoE, so perhaps her no doubt considerable talents could possibly be better employed elsewhere.
As most readers will know, there is reportedly a lack of clarity about what Rachel Reeves actually did at HBOS. We do know that she was employed there from 2006 to 2009. I believe she was in some kind of management role. But if that role had been quite senior, one might have thought she would have highlighted this on her LinkedIn profile rather than just writing that she had been an economist. After all, someone who has demonstrated skills in economic analysis and who had also shown that they could successfully manage large numbers of subordinates would, I believe, be much more attractive to a future employer than someone who had only spent their whole career as an economist.
HBOS collapsed in the 2008 financial crisis and was taken over by Lloyds. Following the Lloyds takeover, the bank’s management launched a massive programme of cost cutting. In 2009, the Guardian newspaper explained:
When Lloyds’s rearing black horse kicked Halifax’s white Xs off a huge brown brick building in the centre of Leeds, marketing manager Rachel McHale thought her job was safe; she could not have been more wrong. Six months after the takeover in January, she was made redundant. “It was a slap in the face,” she said. “I was shocked because I’d been there for 15 years and thought they would want to retain my skills. I didn’t just lose my salary. I lost everything I had struggled for, like health insurance for my family and a company car.”
The redundancies have not stopped. Many of McHale’s former colleagues were told last week they would also be losing their jobs when Lloyds announced that 460 posts would be slashed in Leeds, one of Britain’s financial hubs.
That was part of 5,000 job losses earmarked by Britain’s biggest high-street bank. It has axed an estimated 15,000 roles since the rescue takeover of HBOS, which put 43% of Lloyds’s shares in the hands of the taxpayer. The toll has been higher at Royal Bank of Scotland, in which the taxpayer stake will soon rise to 84%, with 20,000 cuts announced.
It seems that Reeves’s departure from HBOS coincided with the 2009 jobs massacre. What we don’t know is whether her departure was voluntary, as she sought to move on to develop her career in pastures new, or whether the bank’s management decided that Reeves’s talents were no longer essential to ensuring the bank’s future financial success. Somebody out there does know the truth. But finding that person might be difficult.
I fully accept that my suspicions of Reeves possibly being let go by HBOS and maybe even by the BoE are purely based on a vague feeling that we haven’t been told the whole truth about our Chancellor’s career success or otherwise before she was handed control of our fine country’s finances. And I believe that this information could be important to those of us who are somewhat unconvinced by her economic performance in her first six months as Chancellor. So I feel that there are some probing questions which could and should be asked by our mainstream media’s intrepid and dogged investigative journalists, like… like… well, um… like… Actually, having seen how all our mainstream media journalists seemed to have obediently parroted the government line on such issues as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity of lockdowns, the safety and effectiveness of certain medical treatments, the motivation for the appalling Southport murders and the utter nonsense of anthropogenic climate change, I can’t really think of any real mainstream media investigative journalists I would trust. So I doubt we’ll ever find out the truth about Ms. Reeves’s real reasons for leaving the BoE and HBOS.
However, whatever doubts people may have about Rachel Reeves’s qualities and suitability as our Chancellor, we have to remember that her predecessor as Shadow Chancellor was the intellectual and political colossus Anneliese Dodds. I invite any interested readers to have a look at Anneliese Dodds’s education and career highlights so you can judge for yourselves her fitness to run our country’s finances.
David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.
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.
O/T but … “…the utter nonsense of anthropogenic climate change …”. Clearly, the DT’s holiday dept agrees, as they keep pushing foreign breaks, like this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/the-25-best-places-to-visit-in-2025/
I made a comment suggesting some hypocrisy and wondered whether the environment dept had been fired and got moderated off! Must remember to take screen shots in future.
Rachel Reeves is the UK’s Elizabeth Holmes.
The only significant difference is that the investors Rachel Thieves is conning are forced into handing over their hard-earned wealth, as opposed to handing it over voluntarily.
The better half says there is another significant difference: that Elizabeth Holmes is not nearly as repulsive.
Holmes was also clever enough to build up a billion dollar racket. Rachel from accounts seems to have less ability to build up anything than Dell Boy.
She’s a liar. Liars lie. Their lies tend to become more convoluted until eventually they can no longer sustain them.
We’re close to that stage now.
And yet Starmer appointed her, and I don’t doubt for a minute that he wasn’t aware of all of these background dodgy shenanigans, with regards to Reeves or anyone else. In fact, Starmer has appointed quite a number of clowns, hasn’t he? He seems as reluctant to get rid of any of them as he is to deport any illegals or criminal migrants, but that’s Human Rights lawyers/WEF puppeticians for you.
Two Tier is too thick to see that he is making the members of the student union into government ministers with the expected results.
Whenever I’ve had to make redundancies, I’ve always seen it as a chance to thin out the underachievers. None of this ‘last in, first out’ nonsense. Why on earth would I lose my best staff.?
Anyway, we are seemingly stuck with a habitual liar and self promoter as Chancellor, but she is fully supported by her leader. A budget that would have got you a D- in O-level economics is barely questioned by anyone of note. No-one appears to care that our economy is heading down the toilet, so I can only assume that this is exactly what was intended. I guess the budget could have been presented by a group of chimpanzees, and it would be applauded just the same. Ms Reeves, just appears to me to be a chancer, an economics talent vacuum with a tendency to create mythical worlds, far from any truth, in which she has great stature and competence.
Therefore it is irrelevant whether she jumped, was pushed or came off worst in a struggle on the balcony at her earlier engagements. She is delivering exactly what she has been asked to, the impoverishment of the UK.
“She is delivering exactly what she has been asked to, the impoverishment of the UK.”
Exactly.
B-b-but…we’d have been so much better off had women never been given the vote.” So say the resident Misogynist Society.
That’s why I can refute their delusional ‘argument’, if you can call it that, with my eyes closed until the cows come home, because all one has to do is face and accept reality. Starmer, a man, is in charge of the running of the country and part of his responsibilities is overseeing the ministers he’s appointed. These front benchers have not suddenly gone rogue, allowed to act with complete autonomy, implementing whatever policies they so wish because they’ve nobody in a position of authority to oversee and sign off on what they’re proposing. The buck stops with the PM.
In what sort of organisation could subordinate members of management/ team members be allowed to make the claims these people have been making re housing, migrants, the vitriolic and alienating comments about the incoming President of the U.S, the race-baiting from that black racist Butler woman, the fraud and proven lies about one’s employment history etc? People would be hauled over the coals and disciplined or just booted out, but none of them are. No matter how badly their behaviour ( and that’s before we even mention Starmers disgusting behaviour towards the British public ), lack of professionalism or general ineptitude reflects on Starmer, they’re staying put and this is his decision and his alone and he’s the one giving the green light to any policies allowed to go ahead. So undeniably this is all happening by design and by the real ‘Powers That Be’.
Seriously, beam me up, Scotty.
But apparently this is all supposed to be those pesky Suffragettes’ fault.
N.B: Don’t worry, I don’t expect a response. I’m well aware how you all close ranks, and
will fly before a man ever calls out another man on here when it comes to scapegoating and badmouthing women. “Silence is compliance”, and all…
“Starmer, a man, is in charge of the running of the country and part of his responsibilities is overseeing the ministers he’s appointed.”
100%.
The buck stops with Kneel. End of. Period.
Anybody but anybody who has ever had the responsibility for leading other people and who has taken their job seriously would always consider the failings of a team member as a reflection on them. Kneel does not understand this very basic principle of man management and that is because nobody exists in Kneel’s world other than Kneel. Empathy could never be explained to Kneel because he is utterly devoid of feelings.
Kneel knows that Europe is in a race to the bottom and by God is he determined to win it.
It would be a great betrayal if our economy was being deliberately hobbled to make sliding back into the EU easier.
Disagree. The correct explanation is that these people are just plain thick. Evidence comes from Rachel from Accounts looking stunned when the CBI did not cheer her to the rafters at their conference but sat horrified at her tax grab.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700824
For those who missed this yesterday, a petition demanding that the government puts a stop to ALL immigration for the next five years. At least this will keep the topic of immigration in the public eye if nothing else.
Although it is amusing, and probably accurate, to call her Rachel from Accounts [and in doing so it catches the public’s attention, which is no bad thing], the truth is worse. Reeves is a puppet, put there to do exactly what she is told, which is to screw up left, right and centre. It is amazing that Starmer, who must have known her real background, agreed to take the risk of appointing her in the almost certain knowledge that this would be exposed. But maybe all that does is confirm how far they have got their hooks into him too? Who knows what blackmail is waiting to be expsoed [maybe Hopkins, Neil, Tousi, and/or Oakeshott will oblige?]
Ditto the mathematically trained [to A level] Ed Miliband. He can understand the numbers on Net Zero, he can figure out that the numbers support neither renewable energy, nor net zero, nor his claims of ‘£300 off’ [a phrase he will come to regret]. But he worships his own beliefs, and can never be wrong, so he happily doubles down to the commands of the lobbyists – he is their perfect stooge
Lammy is just a thick DEI hire. He’ll make enough bad calls in his own right, and save the puppetmasters a bill
Hardliner, I am impressed
My educational qualifications date from about the same time as Reeves’ and I can produce my degree and other professional certificates with neither hesitation nor prevarication. It would be the simplest thing in the world for Reeves to show us her degree certificates from Oxford University and the London School of Economics in order to silence the doubters on that point. (This cannot be done without her express consent.) Throw in a few photos of her time there and maybe some references from her erstwhile tutors and fellow students attesting to her brilliance – especially considering her modest comprehensive school education in south east London and it would help her status enormously. What’s stopping her?
Simple.
Never explain, never apologise.
The invariable totalitarian mantra.
Sorry. But I think you’ve missed the point. I have never questioned her academic credentials. Nor has anyone else as far as I know. The issue I have tried (apparently unsuccessfully) is whether she was a succes in her two jobs or whether she was booted out from one or even both both due to her uselessness.
“I’ve been more than troubled by Rachel Reeves’s CV […]” opens your article. All CVs contain educational qualifications which are normally verified by any prospective employer. This is not questioning academic credentials, it is standard compliance. We the public employ Ms Reeves and we cannot rely on rumour or inuendo. Where it is a matter of simple, verifiable facts, and if there is found to be a problem with them, that would be a very serious matter indeed. Which is why it is standard practice for employers to require sight of formal educational qualifications – to prevent fraud. There has indeed been a great deal of informal comment on the uselessness (your word) of such a putatively high-achieving Chancellor. It is also normal for discussions on articles in the Daily Sceptic to try and offer additional perspectives on the topic.
One thing I know for sure: she certainly doesn’t come across as a competent, experienced economist.
There is just too much of the “all mouth and trousers” feel about her.
Also, look at her eyes why she’s giving a speech: she looks scared, like she thinks “I’m not up to this and I’m going to be found out”. Which she tries to suppress by being overly assertive.
Exactly. Watch Dropout. All about Elizabeth Holmes. We are seeing exactly the same character in the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Unfortunately economies are not (mis)managed to meet or according to economic criteria, or in the best interests of the people, but to serve the narrow political and ideological interests of whatever shower of schitt is ruling the roost.
Competence in anything is not required, contra-indicated even – as we can see right before our eyes in the passing parade of politicians of the main Parties.
You seem not to have seen a tweet from one of her bosses at HBOS. According to the tweet, she and some other managers was discovered to have been fiddling their expenses. After she was confronted about that, she started having lots of dental appointments so she was followed and was discovered to be working in the local Labour Party office. After that discovered she was let go. https://x.com/exRAF_Al/status/1858084854048419948?s=03
The original post seems to have been deleted by Kev Gillett (the boss at HBOS).
Thanks for mentioning that. I didn’t include that for legal reasons as I’ve been unable to corroborate that story. But if true, then it supports my contention that Reeves left HBOS (either voluntarily or else was made redundant) due to underperformance and dishonesty.
PS Just got your book on the climate change scam!
Just what about DEI do you not understand? Explains how she came to be Chancellor.
Somebody, who worked at HBOS at the same time as Reeves, posted the truth on Linked In. Sorry I can’t provide the link, but I have seen the post.
The link is in the comment by WomBat99 just below
When the Reeves CV news broke, Guido highlighted a comment on LinkedIn from someone claiming to be her then boss’s boss’s boss which mentioned er, Difficulties with Expenses
Sadly even if we could get somebody on the inside to check the files, after 10 years have elapsed HR files can be destroyed so neither the BoE or Halifax need retain them.