Is it time to reshuffle? A major BBC investigation has thrown the Chancellor's past into the spotlight. Sending shockwaves through number eleven.
The investigation, which involved over 20 sources, many of them former colleagues, and gave access to receipts, emails, internal documents and everything that they need, suggests that Rachel Reeves was allegedly at the centre of an expenses scandal during her time in customer service.
Of course, we only recently discovered that she even held that position, as her LinkedIn claimed she was an economist there until it was exposed late last year that that was indeed inaccurate.
Well, the BBC alleges that before entering Parliament, Reeves was one of the three employees investigated by HBOs for using expenses to fund a lifestyle with inappropriate spending on dinners, events, taxis and gifts.
Alex Armstrong said that people can no longer trust the Chancellor
GB News
Among the purchases were handbags, perfume, earrings and wine for colleagues. Well, a former colleague told the BBC that Reeves and senior managers had a very cavalier attitude regarding the budget. Sound familiar?
One example, a £400 leaving meal paid for with a company card, and she also spent £152 on a handbag and perfume as a present for her boss using the bank's money, according to the whistleblowers report.
Now, you might ask, why does this matter? While this is all happening the bank itself was in crisis. Cast your mind back. The government arranged a takeover by Lloyds and an emergency taxpayer bailout of £20.5 billion.
£20.5 billion. I'll leave you to decide whether that sounds like someone you could trust with your hard earned taxpayer cash.
Well, a whistleblower apparently raised these concerns about spending habits of Rachel Reeves and two other managers in early 2009. Shortly after the alleged investigation, Reeves and her boss left the bank. The other senior manager went on sick leave and never returned.
The BBC claims there was a widespread belief that in the bank that there had been an expenses investigation into Reeves and two colleagues.
Of course, no direct link between the departures and the alleged investigation has been established, but the Chancellor, of course, has responded to these claims.
She said: "Well, no one ever raised any concerns about my expenses when I worked for Halifax Bank of Scotland. I submitted, had processed and had my expenses signed off in the proper way, as you would expect."
To be fair to Reeves, the BBC says there was no evidence in that internal investigation was ever completed or that there was ever findings of any wrongdoing.
But it doesn't end there. Unfortunately, the BBC also found that Reeves left the Bank of England nine months earlier than was also stated on her LinkedIn profile. Say that you'd worked at the Bank of England for a decade, when in fact it was, well, it wasn't even six years, it was five. I mean, that's exaggeration, isn't it?
That profile on LinkedIn seen more updates than a Tory cabinet reshuffle. Talking of Tories, conservative leader Kemi Badenoch was quick to respond.
Rachel Reeves denied the expenses claims
PA
If you thought it was all over, think again, in 2015 Reeves was among 19 MPs who had their official credit card suspended by the parliamentary expenses watchdog after failing to show their spending was valid.
At the time, she owed more than £4,000, but she did pay it back only after her credit card was blocked. Despite all of this, Downing Street spokesperson is this the Prime Minister has no concerns about her conduct.
Isn't this the same Prime Minister who sacked Louise Hague after her trustworthiness issues? Anyway, so is she the Iron Chancellor or can't recall?
Rachel, you can't claim to be all over the detail and conveniently forget simple details about your previous employment. You can't claim credibility if you inflate your experience and qualifications.
Labour has positioned itself as the moral alternative to the Conservatives, vowing to restore trust in British politics. How many times have we heard that? But when the Chancellor's own history is riddled with questions, and not even the Chancellor herself has the answers?
How on earth can the public trust her with their hard earned cash?
