So, did Hunt push Reeves into that £22bn black hole? Strangely, no…

The former chancellor passed on his chance to tackle his successor on those hotly disputed numbers, choosing instead to tackle her on ‘cronyism’. So what was he playing at, asks John Rentoul

Increasingly annoyed, former chancellor Jeremy Hunt heckled his successor indignantly (via Reuters)

Shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt bided his time. It was not until 50 minutes into the hour of Treasury questions in the Commons that he finally got to his feet. The tension had been building, as Rachel Reeves and her Treasury ministers goaded the Conservatives with increasing confidence.

Nearly every answer from Labour ministers referred to the £22bn “black hole” that had been left in the public finances by the last “incompetent”, “disastrous” and “irresponsible” Tory government. “What we haven’t heard from the front bench opposite is an apology for the mess they left behind,” Reeves scolded.

Hunt looked increasingly annoyed, and heckled his successor indignantly. Their courteous and respectful exchanges immediately after the election now seem a distant memory.

Meanwhile, Reeves and her ministers came under sustained pressure from Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs over the cut in winter fuel payments to all but the poorest pensioners. Labour MPs are not happy about it either, but only two said so. Sam Rushworth, the new MP for Bishop Auckland, whose constituency contains the village of Copley, the “snowiest in England”, he said, wanted to know what the chancellor would do to ensure that its people will not struggle to heat their homes this winter. Reeves said the government had an insulation programme.

Rachael Maskell, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group who has already gone public with her opposition, asked a particularly hostile question about how Reeves was going to prevent pensioners suffering from “cold, ill-health – or worse – this winter”.

Reeves rehearsed what was by now a familiar answer: the state pension has gone up by £900 since this time last year, while energy prices have gone down. Plus the government was encouraging all pensioners who are entitled to pension credit to claim it. This is not wholly convincing: the reason the state pension has gone up is to catch up with inflation, and many pensioners just above the pension credit threshold are going to be worse off when the £300 winter fuel payment is taken away.

Reeves pretended to become increasingly angry about the “travesty” of 800,000 pensioners who “missed out” on pension credit under the last Conservative government – but that does nothing to address the loss suffered by pensioners just above the level of the means test.

So, would Hunt deliver the wounding blow? Would he reveal to them that their prime minister had decided that there would, after all, be a vote on the winter fuel cut next week? Would he offer Labour MPs devastating sympathy for their struggles with their consciences?

No, he asked about “cronyism” instead. This is important, especially given Reeves and Keir Starmer’s holier-than-thou flaying of the last government for falling short of the highest ethical standards. But it is not as important to the voters as the question of whether they, or their parents or grandparents, will be able to keep warm this winter.

And the details are hard to follow. Hunt wanted to know if Reeves had declared to the Treasury’s top civil servant that Ian Corfield was a Labour donor before he was appointed to a senior civil service job. Reeves said she had declared the donation as she was required to do, and anyway, Corfield is not a civil servant any more – he will help the government, unpaid, as an outsider. It looks as if a mistake was made but has been put right, so it is hard to see what Hunt gains by pursuing the dead fox.

Meanwhile, he allowed the Lib Dems to make the running in fighting for the interests of pensioners who are too poor to afford their heating bills but not poor enough to qualify for benefits. Danny Chambers, the new Lib Dem MP for Winchester, was left to say what the shadow chancellor should have said, asking Reeves to reconsider her decision in light of the “huge strength of feeling on all sides of the House”.