Rachel Reeves’s duty is to the people, not the markets

‘If Rachel Reeves wishes to cut the welfare bill, how about tackling the housing benefit paid to landlords?’ Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Your editorial (14 January) rightly critiques Rachel Reeves’s adherence to Treasury orthodoxy. But the persistence of this framework goes deeper than institutional inertia. It reflects a failure to recognise a choice at all – and an inability to imagine and craft better alternatives.

Treasury orthodoxy is rooted in the Thatcher-Reagan era. It is not just outdated, but has become invisible to those who wield it. Traditional economic training teaches policymakers to see fiscal discipline and market reassurance not just as good options but as the only ones. This narrow view blinds them to evidence that transformative public investment, targeted redistribution and state-led solutions can be essential to tackle inequality, stagnation and the environmental crisis.