If Labour lacks a compelling story, the buck stops with Starmer, not his tearful neighbour

The prime minister has a big decision to make on Rachel Reeves' future, but it is the bond markets that may yet keep her at No 11

- Andrew Rawnsley

Looking back on the most lowering week of this government's torrid life, one member of the cabinet mused: “Something like this probably needed to happen.” That’s an interesting take on the days of mayhem in which mass backbench revolt forced ministers to gut their welfare legislation as it was being debated in the Commons and tears trickled down the cheeks of a distressed chancellor in the full heat of prime minister's questions as she sat behind her oblivious leader. A different member of the cabinet speaks for more than himself when he says: “A glaring spotlight has been shone on what needs to change.”

The great rebellion over welfare, combined with the thought-concentrating milestone of a year in power, demands a rethink about how this government operates. On that, everyone agrees. Minds turn to a reshuffle, the default option for a prime minister who badly needs a reboot. There is only one change to the cabinet's personnel that might make a seriously consequential difference, for good or ill, to its direction and public perceptions of its performance. There is a big decision for Sir Keir to make and that is whether to keep Rachel Reeves at the Treasury or to find himself a new chancellor.

The case for removing her is so easy to argue that one regularly hears it from the averagely vituperative Labour backbencher. In the eyes of her angry band of critics, Ms Reeves tops the list of those responsible for leaving the government shipping water in a sea of troubles.

She made the horribly unpopular, and since reversed, decision to remove the winter fuel payment from the vast majority of pensioners.