Rachel Reeves's lies are an insult to high-achieving women

Telegraph

18-02-2025

In this day and age, does anyone seriously believe a woman cannot attempt to run the economy as competently as a man? That the allegedly fairer sex – against all the evidence that girls are outperforming boys in Stem subjects – is also a little dimmer, too?
I ask, because I'm beginning to have my doubts. You see, Labour made quite a fuss over Rachel Reeves's appointment as the country's first female chancellor. Few cared: this isn't the 1950s, we've already had three female PMs, it was a woman who quickly and quietly saved Britain from Covid, many have run large and successful companies.
But as Harriet Harman said last year, 'It's sort of shameful that we think we're the party of women and equality... [and] we've never had a woman leader.' With this in mind, nothing could dissuade Keir Starmer from handing Reeves the keys to Number 11, with perhaps a move next door if he decides to hang up his boots.
And her qualifications seemed impeccable. 'For a would-be chancellor,' The Guardian gushed last summer, her 'CV could hardly be more perfect.' She was a former HBOS economist, so knew her way around a spreadsheet. She was a former chess champion, always thinking several moves ahead. And she'd just authored a book on great women economists.
As we now know, it was bunkum. Her roles at HBOS and the Bank of England were exaggerated. Chunks of her book were plagiarised. We've just discovered that despite claims she had written in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy (ranked seventh in the Ideas/RePEc list), she in fact jointly penned a publication for the European Journal of Political Economy (ranked 124th). Questions have also been raised over her personal financial probity.
Then there's the small matter that, in just seven months, Reeves has begun digging our economy's grave. GDP per head has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. Millionaires are fleeing as fast as their luxury yachts can sail them, private schools are closing their doors, businesses are dishing out P45s – and that's before the £25 billion 'jobs tax' (Reeves's words, not mine) kicks in.
By appointing someone so ill-equipped for the office, Labour hasn't blazed a trail for other women to follow: it's sent a message that, in virtue-signalling Britain, people are no longer hired on the strength of their character, ability or experience. It's implied that women cannot compete without help, delegitimising the achievements of all those who've made it to the top because they are genuinely excellent.
As it happens, the Reeves experience is nothing new. The FTSE100 has a long history of diversity hires for whom the job is not primarily about satisfying customers and shareholders but trumpeting a political ideology. Alison Rose made climate change a 'central pillar' of her leadership at NatWest, oversaw the debanking of Nigel Farage, leaked inaccurate information to the BBC following that scandal, and was forced to resign. Paula Vennells, described by one Post Office employee as 'incomprehensible', presided over the Horizon scandal. Amanda Blanc, CEO of Aviva, once proudly declared that no senior 'non-diverse' hire is made without her specific approval.
Nevertheless, we remain fixated with the notion of fair representation and the idea that DEI is beneficial to business, though there is little evidence to support such assertions. A much-quoted McKinsey report, which appeared to show that diversity made companies more profitable, has been robustly challenged. Diversity in and of itself, academics have warned, has no statistically significant relationships to profits, sales or a host of other metrics.
Despite this, the Financial Conduct Authority is now considering tighter rules for how firms should treat DEI in order to 'reduce group think and unlock talent'. What this really means is more state involvement in private employment decisions in order to engineer particular social outcomes. But what woman wants a promotion based on her gender rather than attributes? I certainly don't.
Perhaps there's a way Starmer might nudge Reeves along whilst avoiding the 'optics' of putting a man in her place. Let Yvette Cooper do the job, with Ed Balls dragged away from breakfast TV to be her chief adviser if need be. She is at least honest, as far as we know – a quality in pitifully short supply on the Labour benches. It has just emerged that the Business Secretary apparently claimed he was a solicitor despite never qualifying. Or – let's be really radical here – Starmer could appoint whoever he considers best suited to the job.