It is something of a coup for Labour to position itself as the party to boost business

Editorial: The shadow chancellor is to be congratulated for confidently forging a reputation for economic competence – but, with the political restraints she will inherit, turning the UK into a predictable place to invest and transact will be no mean feat

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has made the most of an open letter signed by 121 business leaders endorsing Labour’s plans (PA)

In a matter of weeks, the Labour Party will, most likely, be in government after 14 years in opposition. As Rishi Sunak so often points out, they have therefore had a long time to think about policy and ideas. Mr Sunak always adds, predictably enough, that the opposition has come up with nothing – or at least “nothing new” – in the election so far. This is harsh and, fortunately, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, seems ready to prove him wrong.

In her latest high-profile speech – Sir Keir Starmer is granting her vice-presidential billing in this “presidential” election – Ms Reeves capitalised on the open letter signed by 121 business leaders endorsing Labour’s plans and Labour’s polling lead on economic competence. She wants Labour to be the party of business. The days when a Labour shadow chancellor would cheerfully throw out a random pledge to give everyone free broadband have, evidently, gone. She is, to borrow a phrase coined by a previous leader, a serious chancellor for serious times.

Making the Labour Party a determinedly pro-business party is certainly novel. Not since the 1990s and the “prawn cocktail offensive” in the City has the party made such an effort to reassure the business community. Labour hasn’t had much luck stealing the Tories’ clothes since, but, to extend the metaphor, the baleful impact of Brexit and Boris Johnson’s infamous “f*** business” remark pushed the Tories’ clothes a lot closer to Labour’s grasp.

Now Ms Reeves has grabbed the bundle and made off with it, smiling confidently all the way.

At the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby on Tuesday what the assembled business folk heard from Ms Reeves was relatively new, highly refreshing, and, of course, her messages were equally aimed at voters who might be swayed by Mr Sunak’s unoriginal claim that, “as night follows day”, Labour government’s always run out of money.

Her flattery, no doubt sincerely felt, was nonetheless laid on thick, with a trowel. Ms Reeves told the wealth creators before her that she “knows that economic growth comes from the success of businesses, large, medium and small – there is no other way… I’m not one of those politicians who thinks the private sector is a dirty word or a necessary evil”.

Ms Reeves’s assertion that “stability is change” is certainly a touch counterintuitive, but a (mostly) measurable commitment to economic stability and fiscal responsibility is just what everyone would like. It may indeed sound rather dull and cliched, but the reality is that after the dislocations of Brexit, the pandemic and the energy crisis, turning the UK into a predictable sort of place to invest and transact business would be something of a revolution.

Though she didn’t mention it in her speech, her commitment, enshrined in Labour’s “mission” documents, to “securing the highest sustained growth in the G7” will certainly be a fine basis for post-Brexit Britain making the most of its limited options for expansion. Ms Reeves’s almost reverent attitude towards a strengthened Office for Budget Responsibility and support for the independence of the Bank of England is a stark and welcome contrast with the shudder-inducing memories of the Truss experiment.

Still, some more reassurance is needed. Ms Reeves could usefully say some more about how the Labour New Deal for Working People will not lead to more industrial action, and how it is that she can be simultaneously “pro-worker and pro-business”. And, without revealing the full details of her first Budget and public spending plans, she must explain how sticking to those published by Jeremy Hunt will protect those public services not favoured by specific Labour spending pledges.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, Mr Hunt’s plans imply about £20bn in real-terms spending cuts (and £25bn in per capita cuts). Ms Reeves need not publish her own figures and plans without the benefit of Treasury advice; but she could usefully be more candid about what the tough choices she hints at would mean in practice, both for households and, indeed, for businesses.

We look forward to her outlining her ambitions for investment in public infrastructure within the highly restrictive debt-to-GDP ratio she has set for herself. We will learn whether she needs to borrow to invest, and thus boost investment and productivity.

At the weekend, Ms Reeves told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC that the one job she always wanted to do in politics was to be chancellor of the exchequer. Soon, she may well get her wish (and make history as the first woman to do so), and she and Sir Keir may also be armed with a historic landslide majority.

“Changed Labour”, as the party likes to style itself, will be utterly dominant. That will give them the authority and opportunities for enacting “change” that is rather more far-reaching than the reforms on planning, energy supply, training and industrial strategy so far discussed. In particular, well before the end of the first term of Labour’s decade of renewal, the UK’s relationship with the EU will need attention, with a reset with greater ambition than seeking agreements on veterinary practices, touring visas and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

Brexit is the biggest single obstacle to achieving what Ms Reeves, Labour and the nation deserve, even though it will hardly feature in the election. The more Ms Reeves can mitigate it, the more successful a chancellor she will be – and the more Labour will be the unrivalled “party of business”.