Ms Reeves’ speech was a political triangulation: pro‑growth but fiscally disciplined. The Tories reasoned that cutting public spending encouraged business expectations with the prospect of lower taxes and higher profits, which would result in economic growth that would offset the drop in demand caused by the fiscal contraction. Labour’s analysis is that public spending cuts were necessary to avoid inflation and maintain international confidence but insufficient for economic expansion on their own. What’s needed, said Ms Reeves, is an interventionist state. Strong government is needed to save capitalism from its failures and excesses, but it must also spend money on public services, which have been starved of cash under the Tories. Ms Reeves’ claim that a real-terms increase in government spending would avoid austerity is not borne out by the facts. Under the previous Conservative government’s plans, overall public spending was set to grow in real terms while some departments faced deep budget cuts. Withdrawing winter fuel payments to 10 million pensioners to save money is a false economy if the result is more elderly admissions to hospitals.