Rachel Reeves has returned to public debate by defending her record as chancellor and arguing that Britain’s future belongs in Europe. In interviews ahead of a lecture at Harvard University, she said she “absolutely” made the right major decisions in office, while acknowledging that some choices could have been handled differently. She also argued that John Healey’s recent budget depended on groundwork laid by her administration.
Her intervention has prompted speculation about whether she wants a return to government after losing a position she valued. It also came shortly after a low-key budget that left some Labour MPs questioning whether the government had abandoned the much-promised break with neoliberalism.
Reeves’s broader argument was that Andy Burnham did not invent Labour’s pro-European outlook or its aim of putting more money in people’s pockets. Supporters of the former leadership say Reeves and Keir Starmer were privately committed to closer European ties, but believed the political moment was not right to discuss them openly when they sought office.
They have also pointed to continuity in other areas. The sanctions on Israeli settlers announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband in September, together with his apology for aspects of Starmer’s handling of Gaza, reportedly built on work undertaken by his predecessor, Yvette Cooper, during her final weeks at the Foreign Office. Darren Jones, another former Starmer ally, has likewise argued that the government’s decision to postpone difficult defence-funding choices until the next spending review resembled the approach Starmer and Reeves had planned.
The former leadership’s defenders believe their legacy is being rewritten by those who replaced them. However, the article argues that Starmer’s downfall also reflected his failure to lead convincingly. His successor, Burnham, has so far provided greater clarity over the government’s priorities and built a stronger emotional connection with the public.
On issues including Palestine and Europe, Burnham may have shifted policy only marginally because Labour’s manifesto commitments restrict how far the government can go before a general election. Nevertheless, his decisions have produced the political effect Starmer struggled to achieve. Polling cited in the article suggests that this approach is working.
Questions remain over whether Burnham has a larger political vision beyond measures such as social-care reform and a ban on loud music on buses. The government’s 10-year plan, expected in December, is therefore likely to be an important test.
Burnham has promised to give Britain relief after years of crises and financial pressure. Measures such as cutting energy bills by £100 and creating a Downing Street office in Manchester have been popular, but they have also given him time to prepare for more difficult issues, including welfare reform and opposition within Labour to Shabana Mahmood’s plan to extend the waiting period for migrants seeking settlement.
The article concludes that the initial confidence surrounding Burnham’s transition from mayor to prime minister has concealed the scale of the challenge. As the period of goodwill ends and former ministers re-enter the debate, the government will face a clearer test: whether Burnham offers genuinely new ideas or presents an updated version of the previous Labour agenda.
Sources: The Guardian Politics.