I checked the Guide Dogs “sponsor a puppy” calendar on the fridge. Sure enough, there it was. In the box for July 4, under a picture of a young black Lab (“We can’t believe beautiful Barney was ever so small”), are scrawled the words “election day” and three exclamation marks. No, I don’t get out much.

Verification was necessary because I could not quite believe it will be one month this Friday since Keir Starmer stood in Downing Street promising change, calmer waters and “an end to the era of noisy performance” in politics. In the words of Sarah Palin on the Obama administration, how’s that hopey, changey, stuff working out?

Judging by the snarling at the despatch box on Monday, not terribly well. Noisy performance was back in vogue as new Chancellor Rachel Reeves told the Commons she had found a £22 billion black hole in the government accounts.

She blamed the old Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and all associated with him. No one actually said the word lie, we have not yet got to that stage, but the message from Labour was plain: the books were half-baked, there is not enough in the account to cover commitments this year, so something has to give.

That something turns out to include scrapping the winter fuel allowance, up to £300 a year, for pensioners who do not qualify for certain benefits. Sorry mum, sorry grandad, no more Caribbean cruises or lighting your cigars with five-pound notes for you. That must be what Downing Street reckons some pensioners do with the money. Otherwise, why be so mean?

Arrangements may differ for viewers in Scotland. The Scottish Government, which assumes responsibility for the allowance this winter, is doing its sums to see if it can carry on with the benefit as it is. Ivan McKee, the public finance minister, complained he had only been told of Labour’s plans 90 minutes before Reeves got to her feet in the Commons. So much for a reset in relations between the governments.

One might wonder how much thought was given to Scotland, where it tends to be a tad brisk in the winter, before messing around with the fuel allowance.

As for who knew about the black hole, take your pick. There were certainly warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others that the sums did not add up, and that whoever won the election would have to increase taxes or cut spending if they did not want to add to the debt mountain. Turns out these wise words were like whale song: not everyone could hear them.

The Conservatives say the books were opened in full. Labour counters that whole tranches of spending, including the bill for housing asylum seekers, were simply not budgeted for. The consensus from experts seems to be that they both have a point, and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the official, independent monitor of the UK’s public finances, is to review how it gets information from government departments about their spending plans and report back.

What can be deduced from this row over the government books? Such fights usually generate more heat than light, but this one does both in equal measure. Here, given in the spirit of generosity that took hold only too briefly in politics, are a few observations.

First, some woman that Chancellor, eh? The first woman in the job was either genuinely angry with the Conservatives, or she deserves as many Oscars as Meryl Streep. Her Cabinet colleagues have been more Acorn Antiques in their responses, as if no incoming government anywhere had ever raised an eyebrow about the books. Reeves was a classier, more convincing act. It can only be a matter of time before some columnist wonders rashly if being a woman affects how she does the job of Chancellor.

Not sure about that Reeves catchphrase, however: “If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it.” A shade Thatcher with notes of Micawber, it lacks zing and imagination. There would never have been an NHS if Attlee had been of the same mind.

Second, some ministers are finding it easier than others to go from opposition to government. It was almost painful listening to Ian Murray, Secretary of State for Scotland, being interviewed on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland the day after Reeves’s announcement. Would he accept that ending the winter fuel allowance for some was a spending cut? Would he heck. After twists and tumbles worthy of an Olympic gold in gymnastics, he eventually settled on calling it a “targeted intervention” to balance the books.

Next, the SNP is not giving up grievance politics any time soon. Now a reduced force at Westminster, the party lost no time in attacking Labour. Lots of “We told you so” and lectures on the importance of openness. It would have been more convincing had Scottish Government ministers not kept quiet for months about the delays in building National Treatment Centres, as reported that very day by The Herald's Political Editor, Andrew Learmonth.

Fourth, this Labour government is not afraid to be unpopular, but only with certain groups. Junior doctors and other public sector workers in line for above-inflation pay rises find themselves in favour, but certain pensioners and road builders are out in the cold.

Although it is early days, this tough love approach might be going too far, too fast. There has already been the two-child benefit cap row, after which the Prime Minister acquired the nickname “Sir Kid Starver”. How far will we be into the winter months before his Chancellor is known as Rachel “one bar only” Reeves?

Lastly, if this row over the books shows anything it is that governments need more monitoring, not less. Then again, the electorate and media cannot say we were not warned that there would be interesting fiscal times ahead. Why didn’t the argument cut through? Were the messengers to blame, or did voters know it would work out like this, and price it into their decisions accordingly?

Questions for another time, but definitely to be pondered before the budget on 30 October. I’ve marked it in the calendar.