According to The Guardian and many other media sources, based on briefings from 10 Downing Street, senior members of the Labour Party have already been manoeuvring for position in anticipation of Keir Starmer's downfall. When a health secretary has to deny plotting to oust the prime minister, as Wes Streeting had to do yesterday, the rot has already set in. The question now is not whether this government is unravelling, but what that means for its ability to govern. That is most especially a problem for Rachel Reeves, who is supposed to present a Budget within two weeks.
Let me be blunt: you cannot deliver a credible Budget from a government that has already lost its coherence, as this one would appear to have done. A Budget is, above all else, a statement of intent. It is a declaration of priorities, confidence, and direction. None of those things is presently visible in Westminster, and that matters.
Firstly, the purpose of a Budget is to allocate resources in line with a vision. What is, however, clear is that neither Starmer nor Reeves has a vision. Stability in this government's language means keeping the wealthy and the markets happy. At the same time, everyone else absorbs the instability, and beyond that, they have no idea what they are doing.
Secondly, there are no signs that Labour can recover from this mess, not least because this administration was exhausted before it began. Reeves tied herself to Tory fiscal rules from the outset, and that makes real change impossible now. Starmer has stifled internal debate to such an extent that dissent now breaks out in leaks and whispers instead. And Streeting's interventions, whether by design or accident, only expose how brittle the edifice has become. The appearance of unity has gone. The pretence of leadership is fading fast.
Thirdly, even if Reeves somehow delivers her Budget, what credibility will it have? The markets do not believe in her growth projections. The public does not believe in her promises. And her colleagues no longer seem to believe in her prime minister. A Budget without belief behind it is not an act of governance. It is, at best, an administrative formality. It might pass through the Commons, but it will inspire no one.
The consequences are serious.
-
Public services will limp on under the illusion that stability is a substitute for funding.
-
The economy will stagnate while Reeves insists the government's hands are tied by fiscal rules she chose.
-
And the space where a political alternative should exist, of a fairer, sustainable economy, will remain empty, while Labour consumes itself in private briefings and cabinet rivalries.
What should happen instead?
First, Reeves should abandon the fantasy that she can rebuild Britain by following the rules that broke it. Fiscal credibility is not achieved by self-imposed constraint; it comes from having a plan to use the state's resources to deliver well-being, full employment, and ecological security.
Second, Labour needs to rediscover the language of purpose. People did not elect this government to steady the ship; they did so in the hope of changing course. Reeves could still change that narrative if she dared to say what her predecessors never would: that the government's job is to spend first, tax second, and build confidence in the economy through action, and not austerity.
Third, Starmer's leadership vacuum has to be confronted. A government without conviction cannot command the economy. If Labour cannot articulate why it governs, no number of fiscal rules, targets, or costings will save it from implosion. Starmer has, then, to either communicate a vision now or quit; those are his only options.
The tragedy is that there remains a historic opportunity, but Labour will not grab it. Britain is crying out for investment, for fair wages, for energy security, for care, and for hope. Reeves could make the case and provide the funding for those tomorrow if she wished. But she will not, because she has mistaken caution for competence and silence for strength.
A Budget can only work when it is underpinned by the belief that government can make a difference, that people matter more than bond yields, and that stability comes from justice, not deference. Until this government remembers that, it is already over, whatever the calendar says. And Reeves has to decide now whether she wants to shackle herself to that failure, and deliver a Budget doomed to it, or move on, as it seems many of her Cabinet colleagues are already keen to do. There is an interesting fortnight to come.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The irony is excruciating! The coup creators are now facing their own karmic coup.
Because all that bound the centrist authoritarians together was hunger for power.
And now, having delivered a series of chaotic policies – some of which are progressive but which the majority are regressive and/or immoral – they’ve realised that power without vision leads at best to incoherence.
At worst – it leads to them fighting each other for scraps of power.
Isn’t the problem with Reeves that she doesn’t even know she has a choice? She’s utterly convinced that what she is doing is the only answer and she’s not the only one. She’s been part of a project to instil these economic/political ideas for some time and that group really imposed themselves on Starmer quite early on. They’re convinced by their own hype of being the sensible grown-ups and so they’re only going to keep doubling down until their demise. (Worth noting that Wes Streeting has been one of her biggest pals/fans – until it suits him I imagine.) I can’t imagine the next two weeks will be interesting – more like depressingly exactly as you might expect?
Maybe politicians in this country should remember who they are there for/who they represent, i.e. everyone, and get on with the job of improving the lives of everyone and tangibly demonstrating how that is being done.
Until they do then the spectre of Fartrage and Ref*** will continue to grow and the disaster that they would inflict on the country will become more likely.
Craig
The obvious question is ‘What would Captain Rostron & Chief Engineer A.B. Johnston do?’
Its the economic, social and environmental equivalent of ‘Full Ahead and Damm the icebergs?’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rostron
[…] will start publishing my alternative Budget very soon. The question, though, as I have already asked this morning, is whether Reeves can now deliver one that has any prospect of implementation. I increasingly […]
The word on LINO’s lips when it came to power in 2024 was “growth”. “We will grow the economy”. Reeves (& previous Finance Ministers) have predicated this on the private sector leading & doing the investing, with the gov in very much a supporting role. The possibility of the situation needing to be reversed (despite endless evidence that private first gov 2nd does not work) is never considered. Even the much touted GB Energy is a flop. Evidence to a HoC select committee yesterday from people active in community energy showed that GB Energy was nowhere to be seen (gov target for energy from communities by 2030 – 8GW btw – no chance of getting there).
Info from this blog and the comments under it (Col’ Smithers and others) suggest that Reeves is “just following orders” a puppet who keeps the Private 1st, gov 2nd show on the road and thus UK on the road to systemic decline and for ordinary people, poverty (I’m looking at you middle classes).
McSweeney is the puppet master and Starmer is the puppet. There are signs that the knives are out for McSweeney, and he goes so will Starmer. And if Starmer goes so will Reeves. I struggle to believe Starmer will survive long enough to reach Christmas.
I’ve been listening to the podcast version of this Novara Media interview about McSweeney. Rivetting, and frankly shocking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-0lefCBeNE&t=22s
I will listen later
I found it interesting that Starmer’s people were warning MPs to pipe down because talk of replacing him ‘would cause havoc in the markets’. Firstly because the PLP has been sanitised to the point that there is no prospect of any significant policy change. No successor who could possible be elected under current rules will make any serious attempt to wriggle free from the self-imposed fiscal straitjacket, so why would the ‘markets’ care?
Secondly because it is saying the quiet part out loud.
It’s not news that politics, (especially Westminster politics) has become little more than a kind of PR shield for the interests of finance, but they aren’t supposed to admit it! Perhaps it has become so normalised to them that they don’t recognise why they shouldn’t say it. Like so much public infrastructure, the curtain is no longer maintained. Indeed, it is now mostly holes.
Richard,
Your comments are spot on for me.
I feel sorry for those Labour Members who can remember the old days especially pre New Labour, when arguably a better offering was available for ordinary folk.
I think if Reform can polish up their socially conservative credentials and combine with what looks like a more left-wing/progessive view on the role of the govt in the economy or at least tackle meaningfully the cost of living crisis they will give Labour a real challenge at the GE.
People are searching ….
I had lunch with an old friend yesterday he is in his 80s and feels that the country is being run into the ground. I have had a very similar conversation with someone in his mid 30s married with 2 kids last week struggling with work, mortgage, etc.
People are looking for fresh alternatives and I think most have now seen Labour & Conservative parties are part of the problem not the solution.
Look at what the Guardian has reported on Reform suppport today – it is fascinating and indicates a coalition that’s bound to fail.
Starmer and Reeves has been twisting and turning economic concepts like contortionists on crack.
And now, the whole thing is a complete farce because they have not done the most obvious thing which was to keep to their pre-election promises. But its not just them. Their advisors should never be allowed to advise again. We should know their names and they should be barred from government.
What a shower of shit.
The Guardian desperately needs a change of editor just like the country needs a change of political leadership. The following editorial scribbling tells us this government has no clarity of purpose but it should have been obvious even before the general election that one important product of it’s adoption of the fully funded rule is that it privileges the wealthy. It was a key indicator what side of the class war Labour was now on! Now the polls have turned against Labour the Guardian is hypocritically trying to run with public sentiment after months of touting for Starmer!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/12/the-guardian-view-on-labour-leadership-speculation-a-symptom-of-failure-to-define-a-governing-purpose
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/09/new-glossary-entry-the-full-funding-rule/comment-page-1/?unapproved=1052380&moderation-hash=5428e415d332e65ae13ce86313e8f139#comment-1052380
That sounds Martin Kellteish
What concerns me most about the coming budget is that instead of commentators suggesting the sort of changes mentioned on this blog, the media are wheeling out people who are hardline believers in the nonsense debunked by Richard for many years.
Has none of MMT got through to them?
I’ve heard Liam Halligan twice recently repeating the ‘too much debt’ mantra,and ‘more private investment, not public’, and cut welfare spending(more austerity). Halligan is very right- wing and a great advocate of Brexit. He writes mainly in the Telegraph and appears to have gone down the toilet with the newspaper.
I don’t suppose he’s ever looked at MMT and the supporting evidence for it.
He’s just one example amongst many I’ve heard.
When they all went up for their degrees and doctorates, were they not trained in critical thinking, especially to consider other points of view which had evidence to support them?
I understand why Richard feels the need to continually be putting his thoughts down on paper. Once you start wriying about this stuff, it’s hard to stop. Sorry for the rant.
The first time I shared a platform with Stephanie Kelton it was also with Halligan. Neither of us could believe the nonsense he talked.
According to Google AI a lobotomy impairs the ability to think. Taking an economics degree in this country appears to be a non-physical way of volunteering to be lobotomised!
Neal Lawson’s (Compass) take on this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/13/keir-starmer-labour-prime-minister-corbyn-mps
suggests Starmer was never meant to be a winning prime minister rather a stopgap leader between Corbyn and Streeting but with the Tories imploding and the SNP vote collapsing Starmer was accidentally leader when the party won a huge majority. Lawson is scathing about the absence of policy, vision, plan, and believes Labour is headed to join the Tories on the scrapheap unless an entirely new leadership takes the helm –
“The next few months will make or break Labour. In people such as Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham there is a combination of skills and talents that could begin to get the party out of this existential mess. But it’s going to require everyone to be very big and very brave to beat not just Reform, but the causes of Reform. If this isn’t to be Labour’s endgame then nothing less will do.”
He is far too optimistic if he can see talent there.
Nigel Farage appears to have been lobotomised. For the life of him he can’t understand that immigrants with a different skin tone and ethnic background have the same aspirations as Nigel Farage has for himself and his family – well-being. It’s as though he’s never heard of the Good Samaritan, or indeed the injunction in the Christian bible to love thy neighbour as thy self, or indeed modern evolutionary and biological explanation that life is set up for balancing self and other caring. Does Farage even know that we’ve moved on from the dinosaur age where the male reptiles ate their own offspring?
Much to agree with