Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
There are some invisible images. The crying prime minister is one of them. The politicians who encouraged people to style her as the Iron financial director cannot afford to show such a vulnerability.
It may certainly be true that there are unspecified personal issues that have actually led to Rachel Reeves, as her allies have suggested. There was also talk of an argument with the speaker. That’s unfair, but some images define whatever the nuance is.
The first anniversary of the workers’ victory is marked by self-harm that raised the authority of both the Prime Minister and his Prime Minister, and masterminded the welfare reform bill. Reeves struggles to push the cut and has to own this her share.
However, Kiel’s Starge is more blameless for the wreckage. Those who have the Labour feel are the list to include their leaders – know the visceral resistance to cutting disability benefits. The rebellion was inevitable, but the team’s priorities ignored all warnings that it was out of control or that it was seriously flawed in legislation. He exacerbated the mistake by explaining that he was distracted by diplomacy and distracted by arson attacks on his previous home, apparently unsettling. However, the Prime Minister must be able to manage multiple issues at once.
Finally, when he challenged such a thing, he failed to stand by the Prime Minister of Parliament. The talk of Reeves’ departure seems premature. This may ow more to flat feet in priorities in answering questions. Downing Street raced to get the toothpaste back into the tube, which exacerbated the leader’s sense of life without a political touch.
As a result, he is a prime minister who is not trusted by his MPs and now less authority, and the sudden prime minister is forced to find extra money, forcing a government that appears to be unable to carry out difficult but far from revolutionary reforms, even the majority of parliament. That’s all for the restoration of stability and technical calm.
The problem with Reeves is that her fingerprints are at the scene of almost every incident that Labour lawmakers believe is a fundamental mistake. From the current reversal movement, test pensioners’ winter fuel payments from tests up to this week’s welfare rebellion, by means of the method. But one reason she is under so much pressure is that the financially uncurved prime minister needs a politically keen prime minister to complement and restrain them. Starmer is not that guy.
The pair is condemned by critics by critics for the election attention that led Labour to rule out rising taxes for individuals and for the fiscal discipline that has been slidicly described as austerity by those on the left. Along with Starmer Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, they are also considered the key to eradicating the left Corbynite.
And this is now smoking the Gilts market as it shows more widespread concern and considers investors not immediately support the financial implications of defeat and priorities.
MPS may not want to admit it, but the boring but comforting smart/Reeves combination was central to outperforming the workforce. You need to go back to 1966 and find a clear labour election victory that is not built on the implicit promise that leaders will protect voters from the left instincts of their party.
However, the pair lost their hold on top of the party. Investors can see the bleak economic situation and the prime minister who needs more income for tax increases. A notable test is whether the ancestors have been postponed, which his lawmakers have requested, but now they can afford, but will postpone plans to scrap the so-called two child caps on welfare payments to extended families.
The market is watching the workers’ soft left left wing reaffirm itself. They are paying attention to new pressure on the Prime Minister. Manchester’s charismatic mayor Andy Burnham appeared on schedule to provide moral support to those who struggled to restrain them on schedule. And since his local election defeat in May, he has been hungry for complaints that have been chasing British voters.
Downing Street’s allies deny the claim. They say in expanding social housing, the Employment Rights Bill is taking steps to include free school lunches and breakfast clubs. The Ancestors show an agenda of “true labor” and say there will be more in the coming months. In their analysis, Labour lost far more votes and votes for other political parties on the left than they reformed.
Thursday’s announcement of the 10-year NHS plan offers an opportunity to focus, but the next budget already looks like a critical moment. Can Reeves stick to her financial discipline? How can she restore financial trust? What tax increases will this result? What hopes do you have for further reductions in spending? What kind of government does the government want to play actual work qualifications?
Some people may say that Starge has to loosen his Reeves. However, there are three arguments against this. First, Reeves is doing the job she is asked to do and someone has to worry about finances. Second, priorities deserved to be blamed on the welfare fiasco, and the third Prime Minister was forced to abandon the Prime Minister. In any case, the alternatives mentioned, Pat McFadden and Yvette Cooper, are unlikely to make any major changes to their stance.
Voters and markets trust labor for a promise of restraint. A deeper concern is that the ancestors of “one thing at a time” are not strong enough to control the party pulling to the left, and seem unable to clarify the overarching purpose of persuading lawmakers to fall behind on difficult decisions. If double actions are not working, the core issue may not be Reeves.
This government is being unraveled at a terrifying pace, with four years left until the next election. We feel like we are already grieving the lost government. And these are rarely the last sheds of tears.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
