This laughable war on Rachel Reeves

The Daily Mail splashed its front page with the story and, day after day, variations of it cropped up near the top of serious news bulletins. The public, however, seemed remarkably phlegmatic about the issue. 

In a somewhat desperate bid to pump new life into this old dog of an attack, Conservative MPs demanded that HMRC should investigate whether Reeves had properly declared all the benefits she had received via her expenses. This line was given great prominence in the Daily Telegraph although, in other circumstances, the paper would undoubtedly be vitriolic at any suggestion that HMRC should devote time to inquiries into ancient history unlikely to yield any serious contribution to the nation’s empty coffers. 

It seems that determination to undermine the chancellor has no limit but ammunition has been provided by someone who appears to have harboured a grudge against Reeves from their time together at HBoS. Hence there was a handy dossier, complete with copies of receipts, that had been compiled ready to help the ‘investigative reporter’ who was able to reveal to the world that the bank had made some inquiries into the expenses claims. Reeves maintains that she knew nothing of this and there is no indication that those inquiries progressed to anything more formal.  

So the ‘dossier’ could have been dismissed as nothing more than an attempt by a disgruntled former colleague to blacken the reputation of the chancellor. That, however, would have deprived the reporter of his ‘scoop’. So the BBC opted for the opposite approach, treating what at worst might have been some minor infringements of corporate expenses policy as a potentially massive scandal. It was greeted as raw meat by a pack of conservatives who constantly fail to draw blood in parliament.  

The failure of the story to resonate beyond their own small – and diminishing – circles, has incensed the Tories and seen them scraping around to find other ways of demonstrating that Reeves cannot be trusted. (The irony of this, coming from the people responsible for making Boris Johnson prime minister, begetting millions of pounds worth of PPE contracts for friends and partying while insisting others live in Covid isolation, is extraordinary – but a sense of the ironic seems non-existent in the party of Kemi Badenoch.) 

Attention turned to the Reeves CV and various claims she had made, whether in speeches or on the web. Here the investigators uncovered a series of appalling untruths. 

The length of time she worked at the Bank of England was overstated to include a spell when she was studying for a master’s degree in economics; her job description at HBoS did not quite match the title she claimed. Worse still, she had claimed to have work published in the Journal of Political Economy whereas it was actually the European Journal of Political Economy.  

Quite clearly, on the basis of these revelations the woman who now occupies the office of chancellor of the Exchequer is not fit for the job. “The prime minister should sack her immediately” cry her critics. But nothing happens. 

Sir Keir Starmer may have qualms about what Reeves has done since taking over at No. 11 Downing Street, although he has not voiced any publicly. The Budget increases in national insurance contributions have caused widespread concern amongst businesses and charities and almost certainly led to significant job losses, but promises made before the election had limited the incoming government’s room for manoeuvre and Starmer has to accept some responsibility for that.  

He is not going to part with his chancellor because of a CV that describes her as an economist because that is what she happens to be, albeit it is a rare qualification for the job. Perhaps realising that, the Conservatives have now started scouring other ministers’ claims to see if they can find easier victims and have landed on the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds. 

He made the error of describing himself as a solicitor when he was only ever a trainee solicitor.  Were he offering to defend clients, the distinction could be extremely important but Reynolds gave up the law to pursue his career in politics.  

Having been alerted to the slip-up a while ago, the Solicitors Regulation Authority decided that there was nothing about which to be concerned. Now it has agreed to investigate further, following pressure from Robert Jenrick. Yes, that same Jenrick who failed in the Tory leadership contest and was previously best known for being the minister who fast-tracked a massive planning application from a Conservative donor to save him a large amount of cash.  

No sense of irony at all!