The Labour MP for Leeds West and Pudsey, Rachel Reeves, faces allegations of exaggerating her work experience by misrepresenting her time at the Bank of England. Reeves is currently Chancellor of the Exchequer and has faced criticism for stopping the Winter Fuel Allowance for millions of pensioners.
On LinkedIn, Reeves initially stated that she served as an economist at the Bank of England from September 2000 to December 2006, followed by a role as an economist at the Bank of Scotland until December 2009. She also asserted this during the 2010 General Election, informing voters that she had served “as an economist … at Halifax Bank of Scotland.”
However, in an October 2021 interview with Stylist magazine, she claimed to have spent a decade at the Bank of England. This discrepancy in her employment record was highlighted by the Guido Fawkes blog in late October 2024.
Smelling the whiff of scandal, several media outlets reported that Reeves had later revised her LinkedIn profile, removing the assertion of her economist position at the Bank of Scotland and instead indicating that she held a “retail banking job” at the Halifax, which is part of the Bank of Scotland.
The question that needs answering is this: ‘Was Reeves considered for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first instance because of her past experience as an ‘economist’? Is it this ‘expertise’ that first brought her to the attention of Starmer? If so, this could lead to accusations that Reeves had obtained a pecuniary advantage by misrepresenting her skills to obtain an increase in her salary.*
A number of years ago, a man who we’ll call person A, obtained employment in a warehouse. Later on, management noticed that a number of items had been stolen from stock and called in the police to investigate. The police checked all staff for previous convictions and found that person A had a criminal record, which he had not revealed in his job application form.
The police cleared person A of involvement in any theft from the company, but because he hadn’t told the company of his previous convictions, he was charged by the police with obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The company also sacked person A for being untrustworthy, and the local newspaper reported the case. This is a true story. The law on obtaining a pecuniary advantage is as follows:
Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage by Deception
(1)A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2)The cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where-
(a)any debt or charge for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable (including one not legally enforceable) is reduced or in whole or in part evaded or deferred; or
(b)he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he is allowed to do so; or
(c)he is given the opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration in an office or employment, or to win money by betting.
*By becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, Reeves has had a salary increase of £67,505 in addition to her MP’s salary of £91,346, plus expenses. As the law stands, it appears that Reeves is the perfect fit for section 1(c).
Credits:
Main Image: Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash.
Lower Image: Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street, OGL 3, https://commons.wikimedia.org.
The British Movement welcomes articles for possible inclusion on this site from members and supporters across the North of England. Please remember that we have to operate within the laws of this country; we will not include any content that is against the current laws of the United Kingdom. News reports should be topical and relevant to the regions covered by this website.
