The situation was far from sweetness and light back in 1997, we had to make difficult decisions - David Blunkett

Then came the riots. Unlike previous occasions, social media played a substantial role, and dealing with those who incited seems to me to be an imperative. The thugs who went out on the street, sought to blame others for the tragic death of the three young girls in Southport, were the fodder for other people who tried to hide behind anonymity.

Keir Starmer and senior ministers deserve credit for acting so swiftly, and the judiciary and the wider criminal justice system demonstrated what could be done if the will was there.

It is the legacy of 14 years of Conservative administration which has caused the greatest controversy. The so-called “black hole" in the finances is more complex than much of the coverage has acknowledged. There was already a gap between committed spending and revenue. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility had both flagged this to the previous government, who went on to promise even bigger cuts in National Insurance - as I pointed out in this column in August. But it is the “in-year" deficit that Rachel Reeves has been identifying. In other words, the additional shortfall in what the government previously announced, and what they knew was covered by the openly declared budget. Much of the difference, as in the last two years, presumably to be met from what is called the Treasury Reserve.

The problem for all of us in weighing up the options for the government in the budget scheduled on October 30 is that we've no idea what the Treasury Reserve actually contains.

Is it so depleted that short-term measures must be taken – which, as with all emergency action, has medium-term consequences? Back in 2010, when the then-coalition started on its disastrous austerity measures, there was an immediate emergency budget in the summer following the election. Short-termism was writ large, with programmes slashed without due consideration or an eye to the long-term impact.

For instance, the demolition of the Sure Start programme for the essential early months of a child's life, where recent analysis by the IFS has highlighted just how important it has been to those youngsters who benefited from it.

The immediate imperative to balance the books “in-year", has clearly been a driving force for the Chancellor's decision, announced at the end of July, to remove the universality of the winter fuel payment – which was introduced by Gordon Brown, almost 25 years ago, to lessen the impact of a small increase in the state pension because of (you’ve guessed it) very low inflation on which the calculation is always based.

There is a notion afoot, that suits both the Tories and the present government, that things were sweetness and light back in 1997. They were not. Some schools on a four-day week, with hundreds having no inside toilet; roofs falling apart and windows falling out. Universities were on their knees, and I had to take the difficult decision of introducing the first tuition fees. The Health Service, as now, was in meltdown. But tough decisions didn't have to be equated with unpopularity.

In the weeks ahead, the government will be walking a tightrope. Yes, reveal the inheritance, spell out – as the coalition government endeavoured to do month after month, year after year – the legacy from the previous regime. Getting that message across is a prerequisite to benchmarking what you intend to do to put things right.

That is why the audit carried out by a friend of mine, Professor Lord Ara Darzi (an internationally acclaimed surgeon and who is no tribal politician), into the state of the NHS, is so important.

Two things will make a difference in the immediate months ahead.

The first will be to ensure that capital investment continues in a way that stimulates growth, increases productivity, reforms public services and sets us on a path of long-term economic recovery.

The second is more difficult. Namely, how to energise the nation. To create a dynamic where morale is increased, and optimism creates motivation – not just for businesses but for individuals and families. How to demonstrate realism and hard-headed practicality, while at the same time offering hope about a better world around the corner.

Get the balance wrong, and you could set back not just the government, but the well-being of a nation.

History teaches us a lot, sometimes what we don't want to hear. One such profound lesson has to be that Treasury orthodoxy has been so patently wrong over the last century that we can only hope that Rachel Reeves, with her experience of the Bank of England, can walk this tightrope with her eyes firmly on the horizon of the years ahead.

David Blunkett is a Labour Party politician, and served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough.