Rachel Reeves plans to deliver a budget on 26 November — but how can she do that when the Labour government is falling apart? Cabinet briefings, internal plotting and collapsing confidence mean Labour has lost its coherence just when Britain needs leadership. A budget is a statement of belief and purpose. Right now, this government has neither.
In this video, I explain why Reeves' commitment to Tory fiscal rules leaves her unable to act, why Starmer cannot articulate a vision, and why Britain desperately needs investment, fair wages and a politics of care. Can a government with no conviction deliver a budget worth listening to?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
The Labour Party is unravelling, and that has serious consequences because Rachel Reeves is planning to deliver a budget on November 26th, and right now, I don't see how she can credibly do so.
When we know that Number 10 Downing Street has issued briefings against other ministers inside the cabinet, and the Health Secretary has had to deny plotting to oust the Prime Minister, as he had to this week, it's very clear that the rot has set into this Labour government.
In my lifetime, and I've been around for a while now, no government has survived such a situation. It's reached the point where the end is nigh, and as a consequence, Rachel Reeves now faces an impossible task. You cannot deliver a credible budget from a government that has already lost its coherence.
And that's because a budget is not just about numbers. It's a statement of intent. It says, this is who we are, this is what we believe, and this is where we are going. But what happens when a government has no belief, no purpose, and no direction, because that's where Labour is now?
There's a vacuum at the top of the Labour Party and everyone knows it. Keir Starmer talks endlessly about stability, but in his language, stability means keeping the wealthy and the markets happy. Everyone else is bearing the cost of the instability that he and Rachel Reeves are creating. There is no vision, no plan, and no conviction. And in that situation, Rachel Reeves cannot present a meaningful budget because Starmer cannot say what Labour stands for.
And anyway, Rachel Reeves has tied herself up in knots in advance of this budget. She did so before she even got into office, after all, saying that she would comply with Tory fiscal rules. She said she wanted to deliver fiscal credibility, but fiscal credibility does not come from self-imposed constraint. It comes from using the state's resources to deliver wellbeing, full employment and ecological security. Instead, she has locked herself into failure, and she did so before she even reached office.
And what if Rachel Reeves can produce a budget? Who will believe it? The markets no longer trust her growth forecasts, and why should they? We have already seen, based upon data now published by the Office for National Statistics, that for most people there has been no growth at all under this Labour government. And, as a result, the public does not believe her promises either.
Nor do her colleagues now believe in her Prime Minister, to whom she is indelibly tied. A budget without belief is not an act of government; it's just an administrative ritual; something done because it has to be done because the parliamentary timetable requires it.
What are the consequences of this? Very obviously, public services will continue. The funding to do that will be maintained, but they will limp on under the illusion that stability is a substitute for proper funding, which they aren't getting. The economy will stagnate, and we've already seen that begin to happen. Rachel Reeves has delayed this budget already, and the consequence has been a slump in growth because business confidence has been lost. Reeves will insist that this is because the government's hands are tied, when that's completely untrue. All the cards are in her hands if only she wanted to play them.
The result is that there remains a space for a real political alternative. A fair and sustainable economy could be delivered, but nobody is offering it. And Labour, meanwhile, is consuming itself in private briefings and cabinet rivalries. There must be a better way, and of course, there is.
First of all, Rachel Reeves must abandon Tory fiscal rules. They are, after all, the rules that broke Britain. Why she wants to adhere to them in that situation is very hard to understand. They haven't worked. They can't work. They never will work. She has to abandon them.
And secondly, she and Keir Starmer, if they want to have a political future - either of them - must rediscover purpose. After all, Labour was elected in July 2024 on a manifesto titled with one word, which was Change, and what they've delivered is continuity and unsurprisingly, people are fed up.
And third, Rachel Reeves has to recognise reality; the government's job is to spend first, tax second, and build confidence through action and not austerity. These are, of course, the exact opposites of what she thinks and understands and does, but nonetheless, that's what she has to do. She has to recognise that is the real job of a chancellor.
But there is a leadership vacuum in our government. No economy can function when its government has lost conviction. Starmer either needs to articulate a vision now or make way for someone who can. You cannot command an economy when you do not know why you are governing. And without belief, leadership collapses and with it the credibility of every budget.
That is the crisis that Labour faces, and we face crises too because, after all, Britain is crying out for investment. We need fair wages, we need energy security, and we need care and we need hope. Rachel Reeves could fund all of these tomorrow if she believed in the power of government to act. But she mistakes caution for competence and silence for strength.
A budget only works when it is built on belief - belief that the government can make a difference and belief that people matter more than bond yields, and belief that stability comes from social and economic justice are not deference to markets.
Until this government remembers that, it is already over, whatever the parliamentary calendar says. Rachel Reeves must now decide whether she wants to go down with it because that is what is looking very likely right now.
So what do you think? Do you think Labour has had its day, at least under Keir Starmer? Do you think Rachel Reeves can deliver a credible budget? Do you think anyone will be persuaded by what she has to say on November 26th? Do you think it's time for a new chancellor before that even happens? There's a poll down below. Let us know.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
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 ultimate responsibility lies with the prime minister not the chancellor. His official title is, after all, First Lord of the Treasury.
Starmer has, one after another, broken all the pledges he gave when he replaced Corbyn. He now, via Reeves, looks set to break the main pledge he gave during the election (a useless pledge, not to increase taxes, but a pledge nonetheless). He has no vision. He must go
The latest U-turn in Starmer/Reeves’s “forensic” fiscal farce
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget
I’ve never come across a budget with quite so many leaks and reversals. It’s like watching a car on a motorway, suffering a high speed tyre blow-out then lurching from side to side, as the driver vainly attempts to regain control.
It reminds me of when the UK finally slipped out of the ERM. And they think they are the “government”?
It is bizarre
Anyone would think she is clueless
Reeve’s frantic kite flying over the past couple of weeks seems to confirm what Richard has been saying: she really is clueless and is being driven by market and public reactions to ideas that pop into her head now and again.
Correct
I am NOT suggesting that policy should be in thrall to the market but having stated so clearly and often how important markets are, things don’t look good this morning. The pound, gilts and the stock market are all down; Reeves can say what she likes – the “market” does not believe her.
Agreed
I am rewriting my Budget proposals…right now
We can see how the budget is will pan out after reports that Rachel robot was considering levying NI payments on professional LLP firms when it’s leaked that it will “cost the government more than it raises because any increase would be avoided”!
Wealthy face a tax increase, scream loud enough you are left alone.
Says it all about no steer, the genius and the robot.
Much to agree with but the tone of the blog suggests that Reeves (& Starmer) are autonomous – they are their own men/women. However, as has been shown repeatedly in this blog and in BTL comments – this is not & never has been the case. Both are ciphers/order takers – from who exactly & when, is difficult to answer with precision. It is clear that Reeves takes her orders from the FinMin and the BoE, she lacks the knowledge to allow her to make her own decisions & thus others (who?) make them for her. In the case of Starmer, as has been noted: he is on a driverless Docklands Light Railway train and thinks he is in control. If both of them (& others) go, the LINO bureaucracy (controlled by a combo of right whingers and zionists) is likely to pick more of the same, Darren Something wrt Reeves, the ghastyl Streeting in the case of Starmer. Of course, it could all come unstuck with respect to members – who have the final say. Which suggests that the main fight will be “who sits on the list to replace Starmer”. So far so very: USSR 1970s.
Sorry – I thought the video made clear that they stand and fall together.
For those not familiar – LINO = Labour In Name Only
Yes, Richard, you did make it clear that Starmer & Reeves stand or fall together. What worries people is that the actual decisions are taken behind the scenes. Yesterday Starmer was reported as saying he had complete confidence in his Chief of Staff, who would not be losing his job, and my immediate reaction was “Yes, that’s exactly the problem”. And nobody knows how things would work out if Macavity and/or Starmer and/or Reeves were forced out: would Mainstream be able to bring back genuine Labour values? or Would there have to be a general election? And could any general election be fought on the beliefs and policy thinking of candidates rather than on outdated party labels?
Basically Reeves is just talking over our heads to the markets and the small rich cabal that actually runs this country. 26th November will be pure theatre.
There are broader implications to be considered: the devolved nations are watching with horror and no effective voice in the governance of the UK. The only logical conclusion they can arrive at is that managing their own affairs is the only way they can avoid being dragged into the chaos that is visibly developing in London.
With no codified means of seceding from the UK, Scotland & Wales now need to take decisive steps on their own initiative to hasten departure (N Ireland has at least a defined exit route protected by an international treaty). That might take the form of a referendum for the peoples of Scotland and Wales. Westminster will claim they have no right to do so, but what credibility or authority does the current UK government have now? SS Titanic springs to mind.
I have no illusions that getting 2 new states off the ground will be difficult, but, as I’ve being saying all along, it’s inconceivable that we can make a bigger mess of running our countries than we’ve been lumbered with by the UK down the years. At least we understand our strengths and weaknesses, in contrast to successive UK Govs which neither knew nor cared.
Much to agree with
I hope you’re well
The problem is the failure of Starmer & Co to recognise there are two types of caring embedded in life in this universe – caring for self and caring for others. If you want to run a country successfully and stay in office you have to balance both types of caring (reading up on the historic development of democracy will tell you that). Starmer & Co, however, are clearly biased towards doing the first hence their failure. As Larry the Downing Street cat will tell you Starmer getting worked up this week and declaring “This government is going nowhere!” has a double meaning:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/nov/13/ben-jennings-keir-starmer-labour-infighting-cartoon
Richard is right to point to Starmer’s ignorant adoption of the Tory Fully-Funded Rule as a main source of their failure but Starmer decided a long time ago whose interests he wanted to prioritise – the rich after all need somewhere ultra-safe to hoard their loot and especially in times of economic uncertainty. Ironically Starmer, himself, is now one of the main causes of this economic uncertainty. Talk about “being hoist by you own petard” as Shakespeare would have said!
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
More “Budget Irresponsibiity” from The Guardian!
“… instead of using any of the three serious revenue-raising levers that all serious chancellors know are the ones available to them – income tax, national insurance and VAT – revenue will apparently now be raised by what is being described as a “smorgasbord” of smaller taxes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/14/keir-starmer-labour-briefing-tax-rise