The dominant narrative around Chancellor Rachel Reeves is increasingly hard to miss: she’s clinging to “ironclad” fiscal rules, cutting public spending, and in doing so, protecting the interests of the very rich — while working people, public services, and the planet are left to pay the price.

That’s my take on it, anyway – and I’ve been extremely up-front about it in recent articles.

But there is another way of reading her actions.

It’s not that Reeves is ideologically aligned with austerity-era Tories.

Rather, she is deeply preoccupied with avoiding their mistakes — especially the chaos triggered by the Truss-Kwarteng budget.

In this view, Reeves is not recklessly protecting the elite, but cautiously shielding the entire economy from market instability.

Her refusal to ditch tight borrowing rules, even in the face of an IMF green light, is about proving Labour can be trusted — by markets, voters, and the institutions that once saw the party as reckless.

She has even found room to borrow for capital investment — £113 billion for infrastructure, energy and housing over the parliament — which wouldn’t have been possible without changing some fiscal rules.

But here’s the brutal truth: none of that matters if the foundations of public life are crumbling.

Behind the Treasury’s balancing act is a country falling apart:

• Police forces are facing cuts so severe they warn it will be impossible to meet basic public safety targets.

• Social housing plans are underfunded, jeopardising Labour’s own commitment to a generational rebuilding programme.

• Insulation and green energy programmes — vital for net zero and lower bills — are being scaled back.

• Core departments still haven’t agreed budgets just weeks before the spending review.

These aren’t abstract numbers on a Treasury spreadsheet.

They’re real-world failures that will shape people’s daily lives — lives already battered by more than a decade of underinvestment.

And this is where the problem lies.

We do not elect governments to manage decline.

We elect them to fix things.

To act.

To lead.

Labour did not come to power to keep the lights on while services fall apart.

And we should not accept “the markets wouldn’t like it” as an excuse for failing to govern in the national interest.

In an article published only today (May 28, 2025), I wrote that “the market doesn’t care whether you can afford to keep the lights on”.

That’s where governments come in – to do what the markets wouldn’t like, in the national interest.

If Reeves truly believes in stability, then she must understand that there is no economic stability in a society riddled with knife crime, homelessness, unaffordable energy, and collapsing public trust.

The Labour leadership wants to wait for the “right time” to act boldly.

But people are running out of time – and patience.

Rachel Reeves has the tools.

She’s got the platform – and the mandate.

The IMF is even giving her permission.

The only thing missing is the political will to use it.

We don’t need politicians who hide behind the failures of the past.

We need politicians who are willing to step up, take their shot — and fight for the future.