Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Read our
Digital / Print Editions
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
“This pudding has no theme” was a Churchillism that could be applied to budgets as well as desserts. Because while Rachel Reeves’ Budget on Wednesday was in many ways progressive it tells us little about why the Chancellor, or the Government, want to be progressive, where they are taking us, why or how.
Mrs Thatcher once remarked that “It is only on the basis of truth that power should be won or indeed can be worth winning”. It’s a quote that comes to mind as we look at how this Government has descended, despite its huge majority, into survival mode.
Running the state in the 21st century is hard, the poly-crisis of economy, environment, technology and geopolitics create untold pressures and challenges. No one should just stand on the sidelines and claim it’s easy.
But given the complexity and scale of these challenges and more, how on earth could it happen that a Government can come in with so little scrutiny and having done none of the deep thinking and preparation to manage these issues and more?
Again, let’s be considered. It is not as if everything can be solved overnight. It’s not that progress on the economy or public services we’re going to be easy or quick. Meaningful change takes time. We need a politics that is pragmatic in the best sense of the word – a clear sense of direction, and an openness and patience in terms of making progress.
But this Government came in with nothing except an overblown sense of their own ability to make decisions on the hoof. All the country needed, they seemed to argue, was the return of ‘the grown-ups’ and all would be well. They would make the right sound judgements on a case-by-case basis. They would know how to tweak the system to optimise outputs. If ever governments did work like this they they don’t anymore. There isn’t a lever or a dial in Downing Street or the Treasury that you can simply pull or turn and make the world a better place. It’s all densely complicated. And to deal with that complexity you need people on your side willing to help and to shape and enact the decisions you make.
The Good News in Rachel Reeves’ Budget
From lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, to taking on the media-backed gambling lobby, there was much to praise and far less to criticise in the Chancellor’s annual statement, argues Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
The Institute for Government recently reported that Keir Starmer is failing to make major improvements to public services partly because he did not plan properly while in opposition. Wes Streeting in particular is singled out for his “chaotic and incoherent approach” to NHS reform. This picture is mirrored on the economy where a fund manager looked at the impact of the new Government on the bond market and concluded “There is no plan, there is no vision, and they are not going to succeed because they do not have the talent”.
You can’t be competent, if you don’t know to what purpose. A Government that has no direction and no method was always bound to fail. The Prime Minister is of course a barrister, but what works in the courts was never going to work in the country. You can’t just read the brief provided by a civil servant as he might have done in his chambers – and make technical decisions accordingly. It doesn’t matter how much he promises to try harder if he has no idea what good looks like and doesn’t know how change happens in the 21st Century.
The decision, at least for now, not to raise the overall level of income tax in the Budget is an example of this shambolic approach. First, they should never have ruled out tax rises before the last election and put such naive promises in a manifesto. The Conservatives had already won Labour the election, so they were just ensuring that either the economy would suffer if they didn’t put up t…