Can someone please explain Rachel Reeves’ economic thinking to me?

I think I'm in favour of your general thrust. The trouble was that both the Tories and the press really forced Labour into the corner of not increasing personal tax. Had they followed what I would've been happy with and said no, they wouldn't promise that, the papers would've been screaming that there definitely would be 'hikes' (always a hyperbolic word) in taxes on hard-working people. The right wing press never pointed out what the purpose of taxes is i.e. funding for public services which most people moan about most of the time.

Even now Reform UK is promising to spend stacks of cash on what they think will be popular policies, but say nothing of the way they intend to slash (hyperbole?) welfare, NHS spending and the people who actually make this country work. Indeed, no answering where all this cash is coming from. All being well at least some of the press and unbiased broadcasters will press the right wingers on their personal proberty as hard as they have with the current government.

They made a manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on "working people", and income tax has been off limits for decades. Freezing the tax thresholds has in any case raised more through income tax at a time of fairly high wage increases, but this probably hits the lower paid hardest.

Not so long ago the Tories practically had a mandate to raise income tax in order to give nurses a decent pay rise. That goodwill was all squandered by the Truss administration.

The hope perhaps lies in Yvette Cooper.

Both her and Ed Balls were advisors to the Blair government, when the economy was vibrant. Yvette has been both Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Minister for Work and Pensions.

I trust them far more than Torsten Bell, whose finger is everywhere..