MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Honesty in politics will rely for nothing if Reeves doesn’t give up
The key ingredient of any civilisation is trust. Those societies which have high levels of trust are uniquely successful because they can function smoothly and without incessant interference and regulation.
Every aspect of life, from politics to employment to the dealings between neighbours, starts from the assumption that we are truthful and will keep our promises to each other.
It is safe to lend and to borrow. It is safe to invest for the future. Ultimately, it is safe to go out on the street without fear.
In politics, it is equally safe to elect a new government on the basis of promises clearly made in an open, full manifesto. This makes democracy itself possible.
Imagine the gloomy, brutish existence we would endure without trust at the very high levels we are used to.
Imagine the fate of Parliament if election promises were just scraps of paper meaning nothing, and you had no idea if those who sought your vote would do as they pledged.
If Rachel Reeves does not resign for this, then truth and honesty officially no longer count for anything in politics
This is why lying to Parliament is taken so seriously, and why politicians who breach election pledges tend to find themselves out of office and scorned ever afterwards. And quite right too.
Most of us can understand when matters beyond the Government’s control force it to change its plans. But to airily go round spreading untruths, for political advantage, will not do.
It is not a minor piece of gamesmanship, forgivable and forgettable. It poisons the very wells of decency and turns public life into a swamp.
This is why the behaviour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has been so wrong and why, ultimately, she cannot remain in frontline politics.
The Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR), the nearest thing we have to a regulator of fiscal honesty, is quite clear on the matter.
Ms Reeves knew long weeks ago that there was no gaping hole in the public finances.
That put the Chancellor in an awkward position, because high-level briefings to the generally pro-Labour Financial Times, back on September 16, had suggested a black hole perhaps £30 billion deep.
The very next day (as we now know), the OBR privately told the Treasury that higher tax receipts had provided the Government with an unexpected £21 billion bonus.
Six weeks later things had only got better. The OBR told Ms Reeves she actually had £4billion of headroom – the opposite of a black hole.
But on November 4 she was publicly spreading gloom about the public finances so strongly that most observers concluded she was preparing the way for income tax rises.
The behaviour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has been so wrong and cannot remain in frontline politics
The purpose of all these hints and briefings was almost certainly to lessen the political damage of a Budget which did not directly raise income tax but instead used stealth methods to lift another £30billion out of the pockets of Britain’s strivers and savers.
Paul Johnson, former head of the Institute For Fiscal Studies, suspects the Chancellor’s words on November 4 were ‘designed to confirm a narrative that there was a fiscal black hole that needed to be filled with significant tax rises. In fact, as she knew at the time, no such hole existed.’
This simply is not good enough for the holder of the second most powerful position in Government. This row will not go away.
If the Prime Minister tries to pretend that all is well, then he is very likely to find that this squalid piece of dishonesty will sweep him away too.
If Rachel Reeves does not resign for this, then truth and honesty officially no longer count for anything in politics.
