PM is not going to sack his chancellor and nor should he

It may be a silly question, but is the prime minister to blame for encouraging speculation about Rachel Reeves's future when he failed to answer it, twice, after his speech on the great opportunities of AI?

- JOHN RENTOUL

Keir Starmer said the chancellor had his “full confidence” and was doing a “fantastic job”, but would not say that she would remain in post for the duration of the parliament.

This contradicted one of the unwritten rules of British politics, which is that chancellors are always “unassailable” – Margaret Thatcher’s description of Nigel Lawson – until they aren’t.

The reason for this is that prime ministers’ fates are tied to those of their most important minister. That is especially so in this case: Starmer and Reeves have been a double act for four years. They fought the election together, and they have governed together. They are united on the big decisions, even if Starmer has delegated responsibility for some of the tough choices to her, which was a sign that he trusts her judgement.

The winter fuel decision was hers alone, and Starmer and Morgan McSweeney, the new chief of staff, soon thought it was a mistake, but it is not the kind of thing you change your chancellor over.

And you can’t change your chancellor over the big decisions, such as raising taxes, because they are always the joint property of Nos 10 and 11. John Major sacked Norman Lamont eight months after the exchange-rate debacle of 1992, but that was his policy more than it was Lamont’s and it did him no good to make a belated scapegoat of his chancellor.