Chancellor may have broken the law by misrepresenting her experience as an Economist

With the UK economy floundering, and the credibility of Chancellor Rachel Reeves diminishing with each new story exposing her ineptitude and dishonesty, pressure must surely be reaching boiling point on PM Keir Starmer to remove her from her role in the next cabinet reshuffle, expected to take place in the coming weeks. Reeves’ catalogue of misdemeanors prior to taking office, coupled with the clear failings in her role to date, multiple lies exposed on her CV, exaggerating her experience, investigated over fraudulent expenses claims, and now, to top it all off, a suspicion that she may have broken the law. All have rendered her position untenable.

Lying to the electorate

Repeatedly in the run-up to last year’s General Election, Rachel Reeves bragged about her experience as an economist, in order to convince the public as to the relevance and  suitability of her experience and qualifications to take the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are many, many examples to be found of her stating publicly at events that she attended and in TV debates, that she spent almost a decade working as an economist at the Bank of England.

These claims have since been proven to be falsehoods.

She lied about the amount of time she spent working for both the Bank of England and the Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). She boasted of working as an "economist" at the Bank of Scotland from 2006 to 2009 on LinkedIn. But Guido Fawkes revealed that in fact her role actually involved heading up a small team in the complaints department, with her remit involving admin, IT and planning. This earned her the nickname “Rachel from Complaints”, and forced her to update her LinkedIn profile, changing her role from "economist" to "retail banking".

It was then exposed that she had lied about the length of time she spent working at the Bank of England, where she had on more than one occasion claimed to have worked for ‘almost a decade’. It was subsequently revealed that she in fact spent only five and a half year at the BoE, and included within this time was a year spent studying for a Master’ degree. It is some stretch to try to present just 4.5 years of practical experience as “almost a decade”!

Fraudulent expense claims

The final nail in the coffin of Reeves’ credibility came following revelations regarding the circumstances of her departure from HBOS. A BBC News investigation revealed that concerns were raised about Reeves' expenses claims whilst working at HBOS between 2006 and 2009.

A detailed six-page whistleblowing complaint was submitted, with dozens of pages of supporting documents including emails, receipts and memos.

It accused Reeves and two other managers, one of whom was her boss, of using the bank's money to "fund a lifestyle", with spending on events, taxis and gifts, including for each other.

The complaint led to an internal investigation by the bank's risk department.

This was passed to internal audit, which reviewed the allegations and concluded that they were substantiated and there appeared to be evidence of wrongdoing by Reeves and her two colleagues, according to a senior source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

Reeves subsequently left HBOS just one month later under a compromise agreement, the details of which have been kept very hush hush. Coincidence? I am not convinced.

Falsifying contributions to Economics journals

As if dramatically exaggerating her economics experience, and being caught up in a fraudulent expenses scandal weren’t enough to prove her unsuitability for the role of Chancellor, further revelations have continued to be unearthed.

In January, questions were raised regarding a clear and obvious discrepancy in the Chancellor’s ‘Who’s Who’ profile. A profile entry claimed she was previously a contributor to the Journal of Political Economy, a prestigious and highly selective journal featuring only the best quality academic articles.

It’s now been revealed she in fact wrote for the European Journal of Political Economy, a difference described as akin to that between Oxford University and the former Polytechnic Oxford Brooks.

The catalogue of evidence demonstrating Reeves to be a pathological liar, willing to deliberately mislead others in order to advance her own career, is undeniable. If she is so embarrassed about her career prior to entering politics, then how can she possibly believe she is capable of fulfilling one of the most senior and challenging roles in Government?

How can she continue in her role?

Her professional credibility is in the toilet after being repeatedly exposed as a liar. Her questionable morality and good standing are in disarray following the reports that she was involved in a fraudulent expenses investigation whilst working at HBOS. Public and investor confidence in her abilities in the role of Chancellor are at an irrecoverable low point following a disastrous first budget in November. With inflation up, the price of government guilts higher than under Liz Truss, millionaires fleeing our shores, businesses failing and economic growth stalling, it is very difficult how she can continue to justify her position.

But it is worse than just that.

For me, the falsehoods that she has deliberately peddled over many months represent a clear and obvious breach of the Ministerial code. She has attempted to procure public favour for both herself and the Labour Party through false representation. Her deliberate dishonesty almost certainly will have influenced voter intention at the last general election.

By knowingly misleading the public on numerous occasions as to her experience and qualification for the office of Chancellor, Reeves could be seen to be in breach of Section 115 of The Representation Of The People Act 1983. Under this Act of law, it is an offence to exercise ‘undue influence’ on a voter, including through the use of a ‘fraudulent device or contrivance’.

Under this definition, I believe that Rachel Reeves has clearly exercised undue influence over the UK electorate by fraudulently and deliberately exaggerating both the extent and relevance of her experience working as an economist, a claim fundamental to her case for being sufficiently qualified to act in her capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer.