Does it matter if Rachel Reeves fibbed on her CV?

Rachel Reeves is in the headlines again, for all the wrong reasons. The Chancellor’s entry in Who’s Who lists her as a contributor to the Journal of Political Economy. The problem? Reeves has, in fact, only published a single article in a far less prestigious publication, the European Journal of Political Economy.

The latest revelations follow claims that Reeves exaggerated the amount of time she spent working for the Bank of England. Her LinkedIn profile lists her as working at Threadneedle Street for nine months longer than she actually did. Reeves has also previously said she worked as an economist at Halifax Bank of Scotland before entering politics, when she has now acknowledged that her role was in retail banking. A book on economics by the Chancellor was also found to include passages which appear to have been lifted from Wikipedia.

At this rate, it is hard to feel confident she is actually called Rachel, or whether she is really a member of the Labour Party.

The latest drama surrounding an economics journal might sound like small fry, but the difference between the Journal of Political Economy, where Reeves said she has been published, and the European Journal of Political Economy, where her article actually appeared, is vast. As the Times reports, the error has been compared to claiming to have studied at the University of Oxford instead of Oxford Brookes University. There’s nothing wrong with the latter, of course, but it simply isn’t a patch on the former.

As the revelations about Reeves keep on coming, her dwindling band of defenders dismiss the allegations as trivial. Perhaps they have a point. Most people tweak their CV, or embellish their accomplishments a little. This is hardly the worst scandal a political leader has ever been caught up in. Yet Reeves’ defenders miss the bigger issue here: the fibs matter because they reflect a wider concern about a politician who has been over-promoted and lacks the self-confidence to do the job. 

If Reeves hasn’t been entirely candid about small things, such as where and when she worked, how can we trust her on the stuff that really matters, like overseeing the UK economy?

The Chancellor told us that tax rises were not necessary, then pushed through one of the biggest raids in recent history. She told us these tax hikes would not fall on ‘working people’ when, in fact, that was unavoidable.

Reeves seems to live in a fantasy world of her own. It’s a disturbing quality in a Chancellor. 

The Chancellor appeared to think that she can transform the economy all by herself, given her vast experience. If so, she is slowly learning that the reality is far harder. Reeves has a decent CV, and one that is just as good as many of her predecessors, if not better. Yet she seems nervous about whether she is up to the task she faces. If Reeves were doing a better job as Chancellor, the constant revelations about embellishing her CV wouldn’t matter. Instead, the stories feed a sense of a woman who has been over-promoted, and is now floundering around without a clue what to do next as the economy slides into a recession. That is the real reason these revelations are so damaging.