There is something about politics that lends itself to cricketing metaphors. Perhaps it is because the sport – and we're really talking about test cricket here – is so often bursting with narrative. A game played over five days allows time for story lines, both the heroic and mundane, to gently build. Sometimes erupting into euphoria, other times sliding into bathos.
Changing climactic conditions mean that forward planning can only take you so far. The best captains improvise, acting on intuition as well as relying on reams of data. And so we grow inured to ministers on the media round being described as 'on the back foot' or having been 'hit for six'. When one retires (or is sacked) after a run in the cabinet, it may be said that they 'had a good innings'.
Still, my favourite cricketing term – and most pertinent when it comes to the Treasury – is 'rolling the pitch'. Much like a groundsman, this involves laying the political turf for a potential – and often unpopular – policy announcement. In this case, it appears to be a combination of spending restraint and tax rises.
Yesterday evening, The Guardian reported that Rachel Reeves was planning to raise taxes, cut spending and "get tough on benefits" at the Budget on October 30. This relates to the apparent £22 billion black hole she has inherited, a figure unlikely to be improved by the large and unexpected rise in public sector borrowing revealed today.
Having repeatedly ruled out tax rises on "working people", such as income tax, national insurance and VAT, that leaves the chancellor looking at levies on the better off. Think inheritance tax, pension tax relief and capital gain tax. Meanwhile, on the spending side, Reeves is said to be considering sticking to plans for a 1 per cent increase in public spending, which would in reality entail cuts for some Whitehall departments.
Pitch rolling is not an exercise in bait and switch. There will be tax rises and the proverbial "difficult decisions" on spending. Not least when the government has prioritised ending public sector pay disputes in a way that will exhaust already tight departmental budgets. But it is mostly expectations management 101. The government's hope is that, come October, when the tax rises are a little more reserved, and spending decisions a tad more generous, the media and public response will be mild relief, rather than furious indignation.
Taking a step back for a moment, this is all predicated on Labour meeting its fiscal rules, something the party calls "non-negotiable". This involves balancing the current budget (i.e. day-to-day spending, but allowing for borrowing to invest) and ensuring debt is falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast. This is, of course, a largely political rather than economic choice.
I do not mean to suggest that the UK faces no constraints when it comes to how much it is able to borrow. The 'mini-Budget' was a timely if unpleasant reminder of that. But Reeves could, if she so chooses, loosen self-imposed limits and for example prioritise making the tax system more growth friendly or direct spending to longer term programmes with the aim of addressing deep-rooted structural challenges, from ageing infrastructure to adult education. For more on this sort of argument, Jonathan Portes is always a good place to start.
In other words, while Reeves is in a tough spot, she does not have to play the role of Britain's latest chancellor who, coming out to bat on a sticky wicket, reflexively cuts capital spending and in doing so hobbles long-term growth prospects. It's just not cricket.
