Submitted by Bill Fernie
28th October 2026
Every year, the Chancellor stands up in Parliament to present the Budget, surrounded by weeks of speculation, carefully managed announcements and political theatre. The nation waits to discover who will pay more tax, who might receive help and which promises the government believes it can afford.
But how much confidence should we place in a financial plan built on forecasts that can be overturned by events within weeks?
Economic growth, inflation, interest rates, tax receipts and public spending all have to be estimated, often years into the future. The further ahead the forecasts extend, the greater the uncertainty. A war, an oil-price shock, a financial crisis or a sudden slowdown in the economy can change the calculations dramatically.
Perhaps it is time to ask a rather uncomfortable question. Has Britain's annual Budget become an elaborate exercise in guesswork, dressed up as financial certainty?
Forecasts are not facts
The UK has an independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which examines the economic outlook and assesses the likely consequences of government policies. Its work is important, providing an independent check on the Treasury's calculations.
But independence cannot eliminate uncertainty. The OBR must still work with assumptions about how the economy will behave, how much people will earn and spend, what businesses will invest and how much tax the government will collect.
These are estimates, not guarantees.
If economic growth is weaker than expected, tax receipts may disappoint. If inflation remains stubbornly high, public services could face additional costs. If interest rates rise, government borrowing becomes more expensive. And if international tensions push oil and gas prices sharply upwards, the consequences can reach almost every corner of the economy.
The problem is not that forecasts are produced. Governments need forecasts to plan. It is that political debate can give them an appearance of precision that the underlying evidence cannot always justify.
A forecast showing that the government will narrowly meet a financial target several years from now is not proof that it will do so. Small changes in assumptions can produce a very different result.
Yet governments can become preoccupied with whether their plans pass or fail particular financial tests, sometimes adjusting policy to protect a forecast rather than concentrating on the country's wider economic needs.
The public deserves a clearer distinction between what the government intends to do, what it expects to happen and what it can realistically promise.
Why wait for Budget day?
There is another question worth asking. Why must so much attention be concentrated on one annual event when Parliament already has committees examining almost every major area of public policy?
The Treasury Committee scrutinises financial policy. Other committees examine health, education, transport, energy, business and public administration. The Public Accounts Committee investigates how public money is spent and whether taxpayers receive value for it.
These committees can gather evidence, question ministers, consult specialists and expose shortcomings in government policy.
If a problem emerges in the NHS, why should action depend on whether the Chancellor chooses to address it in the next Budget? If councils are struggling with rising costs, or businesses are being squeezed by energy prices, should Parliament not examine the problem and consider solutions when the evidence demands it?
The committee system already provides a foundation for this approach. The difficulty is that committees generally scrutinise and recommend rather than directly determine spending or taxation.
That does not make the idea impractical. It means their findings need to carry greater weight in government decision-making, with ministers required to respond clearly to recommendations and explain why they accept or reject them.
Keep the framework, lose the theatre
There are good reasons for retaining an annual Budget. The government needs an overall financial plan, Parliament must authorise public spending, and changes to taxation require proper parliamentary procedures.
Nor would it make sense to allow every parliamentary committee to demand more money without considering where that money would come from. Better-funded hospitals, improved transport, higher public-sector pay and stronger support for businesses may all be desirable, but they compete for limited resources.
Some central financial discipline is essential.
However, that does not mean the country needs to treat Budget day as the principal occasion on which government demonstrates that it is doing something.
A better system could begin with an annual statement setting out the broad financial framework, spending priorities, borrowing objectives and taxation principles. Parliament would debate the overall choices, while committees would examine specific problems throughout the year.
When a genuine crisis emerged, ministers could bring forward targeted measures, subject to proper scrutiny and parliamentary approval, rather than waiting for the next grand financial announcement.
The OBR could also place greater emphasis on alternative scenarios. What would happen if growth were weaker? What if interest rates rose? What if energy prices remained high for longer than expected?
Showing the public a range of plausible outcomes would be more honest than allowing one central forecast to dominate the discussion.
Follow the money, not just the announcements
Perhaps the greatest weakness in political debate is the attention given to new spending announcements compared with the scrutiny of money already being spent.
Did last year's investment reduce NHS waiting times? Did transport spending improve services?
Did business support protect viable firms and jobs? Did additional public-sector funding produce better services?
These questions deserve as much attention as the latest tax allowance or spending promise.
The government should be required to explain not only how much money it intends to spend, but what that money achieved. Where policies fail, Parliament should investigate why and consider whether the money could be used more effectively.
This would also help distinguish genuine policy failures from the effects of events that no government could reasonably have predicted.
Uncertainty should not become an excuse for failure, just as an unexpected crisis should not automatically be treated as evidence of incompetence.
Less political performance, more governing
The annual Budget will remain an important part of British democracy. But it should not be mistaken for a complete plan for running the country.
Economic forecasts will always involve assumptions. Public spending will always involve difficult choices. And no Chancellor can guarantee that today's calculations will remain accurate five years from now.
What Parliament can do is improve the way those uncertainties are acknowledged, challenge policies throughout the year and demand better evidence that public money is achieving its intended purpose.
The real test of a Budget is not whether the Chancellor delivers a convincing speech or manages to meet a financial target on paper. It is whether the decisions improve the country's long-term prospects and whether the government can respond sensibly when circumstances change.
Perhaps Britain needs less of the annual Budget spectacle and more continuous, evidence-based scrutiny of the problems facing the country.
The Chancellor may have one day to sell the Budget. Parliament has a whole year to make sure the country gets a better deal.