RACHEL Reeves’s voice stuttered and shook as she addressed the Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
Her day had presumably started with an inspection of the front pages of the London papers, most of which focused on speculation about her position.
She looked and sounded rattled as she told MPs of her recent trip to China. A reasonably assured tone at the beginning gave way to stammers within seconds as Tory heckles began to sting.
Readers of The National will have little sympathy for Reeves’s plight, especially given that responsibility for much of her economic woes seems to lie squarely at her feet – not to mention the swingeing cuts she’s said to be considering so as not to break the precious fiscal rules.
But it must have been humiliating for her to listen to Keir Starmer’s press conference on Monday where he pointedly refused to back her position – leaving that for his spokesperson later in the day.
And it must have been truly humbling for her, a member of a party which made so much hay out of Liz Truss’s (above) disastrous mini-budget, to be compared to the former prime minister in the Daily Star’s front page, which asked if they might need to buy another lettuce to see who’d last longer.
Dry your eyes and we’ll get to the point: Is she or ain’t she for the chop?
There are two main schools of thought here. Firstly, there is the argument that getting rid of the Chancellor shields Starmer somewhat from the general sense of doom and gloom engulfing the Labour Party at present.
If this were the route the Government wanted to go down, they’d be better waiting until things looked like they were picking up. Then, Starmer could get toss out Reeves, open a few windows to clear out the stench of failure and attribute the recovery to his genius move to replace her.
But there are problems with this. Firstly, in firing Reeves, he creates a potentially powerful enemy for himself in the party.
Secondly, losing such a senior minister – even if such a move were to come within a year, two years – of Labour coming to power would positively reek of ineptitude. It would be crushing to the morale of MPs. Finally, there really is no obvious replacement for Reeves.
The second school of thought goes something like this: Reeves’s position is in no real danger but this story is telling nonetheless.
Labour have created much of their own pain over the last six months and it seems they won’t budge on this bizarre agenda of self-harm. For evidence, see Reeves’s full-throated defence of her fiscal rules instead of a commitment not to cut public spending after a question from the SNP’s Stephen Flynn (above).
But the blame for the dismal economic situation lies as much with Reeves as it does with Starmer. Firing her makes him look just as bad, if not worse, in the eyes of voters.
Much of the noise about Reeves resigning has come from the Tory-friendly press and it seems that for now and without any constituency calling for her to go, she will likely be safe.
Mischief-making doesn’t need to have a lot of substance – but it must have some. That the Chancellor resigning less than a year into government is even being taken seriously shows just how vulnerable Reeves is.
Maybe she isn’t for the axe yet – but six months ago think just how mighty Labour thought they were. Things might get ugly for Reeves and fast.
