Business leaders are unimpressed with Rachel Reeves or her boss, for that matter, Sir Keir Starmer.

Time was when they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. That was when the pair wooed the City and industry over copious teas and coffees, assuring them that their Labour regime would be different; that they knew how to drive the economy, that they could be trusted.

In a matter of months, that regard has all but evaporated. The economy is tanking. The evidence, despite the claims of Starmer, Reeves and their spinners, is there for all to see.

The distrust – because that is what the mood has become – as the Deloitte survey confirms, goes deeper. In conversations with senior corporate figures, it is remarkable how one incident is raised by them time and again.

For whatever reason, Reeves exaggerated her CV. In their eyes that is unforgivable; do that and you’re out, no questions asked. They cannot take her seriously. Worse, they are contemptuous of Reeves, and of Starmer for standing by her. The chancellor’s authority, such as it was, has vanished and the prime minister’s is also under threat.

What goes with that, too, is the feeling of betrayal. Reeves and Starmer were speaking to them in their mellifluous tones. No sooner did they ascend to power, than they turned around and hit the private sector hard, adding to the financial burden and bringing in new employee protection laws.

Meanwhile, what many see as the old Labour-mindset kicked in, favouring public workers, handing out wage rises which must be paid for – and placating the traditional union influencers.

This, against a backdrop of fear and uncertainty in business versus increasing globalisation and competition; the advent of AI and what that entails; climate change – and conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. That’s without the anointment of Donald Trump and the prospect of higher tariffs and trade wars.

Instead of focusing on those and helping, there is a sense of Reeves and Starmer having no plan. Her weekend trip to China was greeted with derision in those boardrooms that know Beijing well. The initial breathless government hyping of a pledge of extra investment worth £600m over five years was laughable. This is China – if the mission was to have any meaning at all, the numbers should have been in the many billions.

They speak of growth, but provide no concrete detail as to how that will be achieved – and there is a nagging suspicion of policies being dreamt up on the hoof.

Last week, Reeves turned up unexpectedly at a meeting between the British Chambers of Commerce and a junior minister. What was her message? That regulators are to be instructed to adopt a less risk-averse approach. Why then, was it not flagged previously? Is it thought through? How will that work in practice – and from when? Many questions, but few answers.

This week, it is the turn of AI and how that can boost public services. Its impact on the repair of potholes is high on the agenda, apparently. Those with long memories cannot but help be reminded of John Major and his traffic cones hotline. It begins to appear silly. The world is burning, literally, and this is the best they can do.

Reeves and Starmer are falling back on the past, blaming Liz Truss, constantly raising the “£22bn black hole” they inherited from the Tories. That does not wash with businesses that always look ahead, as the markets do. Similarly, Starmer allows himself to be diverted by subjects that don’t matter to entrepreneurs and business chiefs, by Sue Gray, by Tulip Siddiq, by Elon Musk, by Truss, by lawyerly rows about who said what and when.

They crave someone who will rise above, who will show true leadership and knuckle down and grow the economy. They want genuinely significant trade deals, they wish to be cut some slack, to be allowed to breathe and to prosper. They desire to be loved and not as they see it, taken for granted, even abused.

Starmer needs to realise that this matters, that everything flows from a buoyant bottom line. It’s the economy, stupid as someone once said. Surely, he must know that.