This may be an uncomfortable area, but it is worth considering how unprecedented Wednesday’s events were in the House of Commons.
The images were trapped in tears in the media of Rechhel Reavs as Sir Kir Star answered questions from the dispatch box, destructive to a Chancellor who has made an iron core central for his public image.
Some people believe that it is unfair for media to note that Chancellor was blind on live television for half an hour.
Nevertheless, the market, which quickly responded adversely, did not wait for media coverage to decide to trade against Britain.
Perhaps counter-representative, those market movements explained the way through it for Reeves.
In the interpretation of at least several people, the markets were responding to the possibility that Reaves could soon be replaced as a Chancellor, and that its replacement would be less committed to limit the government’s borrowings for day-to-day expenses.
This is the reason that the markets bounced back when Sir Kir Stmper told Nick Robinson of BBC that Reeves would remain Chancellor for many years to come.
Reeves’s brief interview was designed to assure this afternoon as well as his tears were responsible for a “personal issue” and “hard day”.
He insisted that he was “completely” for the job of Chancellor – and he and the Prime Minister would continue working in “Locksteep Together”.
This came after the government created an unspecified presence at a hospital in East London for the launch of the government’s 10 -year NHS scheme.
He did not mention his turbulent episode in a small speech made about healthcare and economy.
But smiling and hugging the Prime Minister from all around, who said that it is “just fantastic that he is here”.
This is probably enough to draw a line under this painful episode.
But the challenge for Reeves remains the same, which was just before the PMQ started.
There is a direct difference between Chancellor (Plus Prime Minister and perhaps Bond Markets), and a large group of Labor MPs.
The tickling of the government’s welfare policy – in a series of panic u -turns – displayed it in a detailed detail.
Rebel MPs who force U-turn believe that a labor government should not be, as many people say, “balanced books on the back of the poor”.
But this is only widespread.
A member of the government said, “If Chancellor comes to us with the budget of autumn,” A member of the government said, “Labor will not say MPs.”
Nevertheless, the Chancellor, in turn, is firm in his belief that the market will not wear further borrowings for day to day expenses, and therefore this option is spending either restraint or tax growing.
At tax, he is Hemed with promises made during the general election campaign and promises made by the Prime Minister.
Reaves, Stamor and – – In the midst of them, they seem to have fundamental tension – markets on one side, and what the parliamentary labor party wants to solve the other a long time before.
