Sheba Sogol

Burnham and Healey are gambling that they will get another chance to do a big budget. But they may look back on this as the best opportunity they had. There are, to my mind, three possible explanations for their approach. One is that they would rather not level with their MPs and the country now. The argument goes that they will be in a better place to confront the trade-offs next autumn. But political capital is a depreciating asset. The second is that they are doing a Mr Micawber, hoping something will turn up to improve the public finances. That could be faster-than-expected growth or a big reduction in government borrowing costs. Either is always possible, but look around the world and you will see the opposite is expected. The other possibility is that they are planning an early election. That would push the reckoning beyond polling day, giving them more flexibility. As I know all too well, elections are never risk-free. The problem is that Wednesday’s budget, and the IMF’s praise for Britain, are founded on fantasy - the idea that the Labour Party will accept the tight spending limits that are meant to kick in as the next election approaches. My preference would be for a budget that cut spending, reduced business taxes and enacted growth-enhancing supply-side reform. Yet with his party in no mood for cuts, you can see why Healey is likely to avoid doing anything too bold on Wednesday. They will never have more room for manoeuvre than now. I know, having done both jobs, that you regret the decisions you don’t take far more than the ones you do. More on the budget in my @thetimes column today 👇 thetimes.com/comment/columni…