Even before her tearful appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions, it was hard not to feel sympathetic towards Rachel Reeves.
She is charged with balancing the books of an economy that is weak, suffering next to no growth. Every policy she comes up with to raise income for the public purse ends up being pilloried and, worse, reversed. Only the night before, the Chancellor found herself presented with an extra £5 billion ($6.35 billion) hole that requires plugging, after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s wriggling capitulation over welfare reform.
It is true that Ms Reeves took the job on those terms, she went in with her eyes wide open. It is also the case that she has been her own worst enemy by proving to be an enthusiastic proponent of her divisive measures. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that she does not act alone, that the steps she takes are collectively agreed, that she works in tandem with Mr Starmer.
At times though, it has felt as if he is encouraging her, pushing her on to the balcony, parading her in front of the crowd, to receive not their applause but their baiting. When it suits them, her ministerial colleagues quietly withdraw, adding to her sense of isolation. She is the figurehead on the prow of the boat, Kate Winslet in Titanic, embracing the threatening icebergs.
When they do voice their support their endorsements ring hollow, akin to a vote of confidence for the doomed manager in football. Increasingly, Ms Reeves seems to be carrying the weight of a government blessed with a huge majority but lacking in ideas, unable to drive that other revenue earner in economic growth and simultaneously losing the investment community’s confidence.
It was not like this in opposition. I met Ms Reeves a few times and found her impressive. She was on top of her brief, intelligent and seemingly capable. Along with Mr Starmer, she engaged in a concerted effort to woo the City and they succeeded. The word came back that financiers who were naturally suspicious of Labour were relaxed. This was a soon-to-be prime minister and chancellor who got it, who were not ground down by leftist dogma and appeared to be on capitalism’s side.
While they were not promising a re-run of Tony Blair, it was clear they were not exactly Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband or worse, Jeremy Corbyn. They were "OK", which from the bankers was as good as it gets.
Doubts were raised with the dissection of her CV. Here, Ms Reeves does merit the blame. She was not a novice; she knew how qualifications could be exaggerated and what a dangerous game that was. She should have known too that in business someone overselling their antecedents is a serious felony – often they either do not reach first base if it is spotted early or they are out if it is highlighted later. She must have realised as well that citing having been an economist at the Bank of England and then the same again at a major commercial bank was tantamount to someone saying they played for the Manchester United first team. They did or they didn’t. That means in a competitive match and not sitting on the bench or simply being in the squad.
Rather than admitting the error she dug in. The nickname "Rachel from accounts" stuck. There was undeniably more than a whiff of sexism and snobbishness about her treatment. It was reminiscent of how Margaret Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer’s daughter". No disparaging label like that would be attached to a male, not to a son.
Likewise, a man who leads is hailed as strong and courageous; a woman who does the same is portrayed as cold and unfeeling, again words that would never be applied to criticise the former. Another female UK politician who endured similar, also from Labour, was Barbara Castle.
There must be a reason why the party of the working class, of the workers, has never had a woman leader. Only male workers count. Women are meant to be at home, where they are supposed to be warm and soft, at all times. From the international side, Angela Merkel was portrayed along the same lines. Merkel was the "Iron Chancellor".
It did not help that Ms Reeves was naturally wary, that she was frequently required to be on the defensive. That could make her come across as brittle and wooden, she stayed glued to a script, robotic, not risking a diversion and a possible run on the markets.
She had to get the cash from somewhere. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. Ms Reeves could cut benefits and antagonise support on the left; she could increase taxes from the better off and lose support from the right.
What made it worse is that the right is bound up with business, so if she hit non-doms, she was not just cracking down on wealthy foreigners who enjoyed tax breaks but hitting inward investment. Again, though, Ms Reeves and her boss should have seen the predictable outcome. That they did not, or if they did and didn’t care, only added to the perception of unworldliness, of an administration that is disconnected and adrift.
Targeting employers’ National Insurance probably felt like another smart ruse but analysis of the likely consequences from an increase would determine that merely supposing they could afford it did not wash. Employers were bound to look twice at the numbers they hired and pass on the rise to customers.
The farmers fell into the identical category. Subjecting them to inheritance tax would result in tractors blocking Westminster and stories of upright, honest men (always men) toiling on the land. Nothing cuts through in Britain like drawing on the past and nothing is more representative of that past than the countryside, than proximity to nature and working the soil.
Ms Reeves has dug herself a hole and to an extent has jumped right in. There will be plenty of others, however, on seeing her plight who will give thanks it’s not them. Look at it another way: if not Ms Reeves, then who? There may be one or two candidates but none leap out. Certainly, given the state of the country, the condition of the global economy, the prime minister and the frustration of the party, it could be a career-ender whoever was to succeed her. Chancellor under Labour is always tough, this is even tougher.
A replacement won’t provoke a spring in the step, certainly no one will exactly leap at the offer and that should tell you ultimately, it’s not all Rachel Reeves’ fault.
