Reeves was saved by City pragmatism, not kindness

There were some in the aftermath of Rachel Reeves's tears at Prime Minister's Questions and the markets falling who supposed the latter were showing their kindness to the beleaguered British chancellor.

- CHRIS BLACKHURST

This was speculators saying they regretted her possible demise and they wished Reeves to stay.

Certainly, the two appeared to go together - Reeves seemingly on the brink and the value of the pound and gilts plunging. None of us know what exactly prompted her anguish and what Sir Keir Starmer discussed with his aides after PMQs. They may have seen the reaction and if they had any plans to remove her decided to shelve them. In that sense, Reeves would have been saved by the City.

It would, though, be wrong to make that interpretation. Investors behaved the way they did, effectively marking down the British economy, not because they are fans of Reeves the person but because they cannot abide change. They abhor uncertainty and nothing would create greater uncertainty than the sudden resignation of the chancellor.

It can be argued, put like that, they did wish her to remain. It’s true that with Reeves there is a case for the devil they know, that with her in place there is solidity and responsibility - she is no Liz Truss — although increasingly that description appears tenuous.

More to the point was that her exit would open up a whole new level of unpredictability. Reeves is not just a jobbing chancellor; she is bound up with the prime minister. As Starmer has put it subsequently, they are in “lockstep” together. Theirs is a joint enterprise. Ever since he was in opposition, preparing for the general election, it has been Starmer and Reeves. It was as a double act that they toured the banking and industry boardrooms and business chiefs’ gatherings, persuading them that this Labour administration could be trusted with their money.