The hullabaloo about Rachel Reeves's future was raised a notch by the prime minister not quite answering a question, twice, after his speech on the great opportunities of artificial intelligence this morning.
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 "unassailable" – Margaret Thatcher's description of Nigel Lawson. Until they aren't.
It would be disastrous for Starmer to dispense with his most important minister: his fate is tied to hers. Her mistakes are his mistakes.
The prime minister's official spokesperson had to step in at the afternoon journalists' briefing to restore the world to its axis by saying: "He will be working with her in her role as chancellor for the whole of this parliament."
Does Starmer know something we don't about whether she wants to stay on, or was it simply inexperience on his part that he failed to give this answer himself?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.