In the interest of the nation, Jeremy Hunt’s Budget must look to the long term

When the chancellor of the Exchequer rises to present his Budget in the Commons on Wednesday, he will be addressing two distinct audiences. The first will be made up of his fellow Conservatives, including MPs on his own benches, who will be hoping against hope that he can conjure up some stroke of genius that could save them and their party from the seemingly inevitable rout at the general election.

The other will be made up of the broad swathes of voters and their families, who have grown weary of a political process that has given them three prime ministers in as many years, without leaving most people any better off in any sense. On the contrary, per capita GDP has declined over the past year gone; NHS waiting lists are at record levels, and many local authorities have been cutting back public services for want of money. As every government surely knows, the purse of the nation is the key to the health of the nation.

Jeremy Hunt’s dilemma is that what may suit the interests of the first constituency is unlikely to do much to help the second, and vice versa. This is why, however difficult it might be for such a seasoned party operator as Mr Hunt – and for a prime minister who must know that the removal vans will almost certainly be drawing up at Downing Street as soon as the general election results are in – it is essential that, between them, they choose the latter.

The temptation, though, runs strongly the other way. However much the chancellor tried to play down the prospect of tax cuts in his Sunday television interviews, insisting that if there were tax cuts, they would only be “responsible” tax cuts, he has done as much as anyone to raise expectations in this quarter. There are also those on the Conservative benches who look longingly back at the disastrous weeks of Liz Truss’s premiership and would like nothing better than to see a return to her quick fix “growth” agenda. They have still, it seems, not learned the lesson that an industrialised country that looks, as the UK does, beyond its own shores, cannot defy the judgement of international markets without the risk of falling on its face.

To all appearances, Mr Hunt has recognised that reality – after all, he came to office with the task of clearing up the economic disaster that she and her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, had left behind. But the country must wait to find out his definition of “responsible”. There is an argument for tax cuts that can boost the economy, but not to the point where they endanger it. Not only is there the general principle that the UK must live within its means but there is the reality of timing. There is no point whatever in this government introducing showy tax reductions, if the next government, whoever forms it, then has no option but to reverse them at once in an emergency effort to plug the black hole in the economy they helped to create.

The proximity of the next election is not, and should not, be the only consideration, however. There is an element of moral leadership to governing that should be acknowledged by governments far more often than it is. And this means looking to the longer term and to the economic health of the country overall – not just to pleasing a particular constituency.

Regrettably, the governing party has not been alone in showing signs of favouring short-term electoral expediency over the long-term health of the economy in the run-up to this Budget. How much of an asset this might be in the months that might remain between the Budget and the election remains to be seen. But long experience has made voters past masters at detecting electoral bribes – some of which rebound more quickly than others.

It may be a bit late to appeal to both sides not to make the Budget a tool of electioneering. As the one who wields power, though, the chancellor has an opportunity to show that he can rise above it, in the interests of the nation.

There are injustices aplenty arising from the current tax and spending regime that he could usefully address, in proportion to whatever economic headroom he really has – from the anomaly that households with similar incomes may or may not qualify for child benefit, depending on how their income divides, to the cliff-edges faced by those on universal credit wanting to work more hours, to the tax bills now suddenly facing those – including pensioners – on low incomes, thanks to the freezing of thresholds. The way small business is, or is not, encouraged, and the way funds are allocated to local authorities, could both do with a fresh look.

Rishi Sunak’s hero was Nigel Lawson – a tax cutter but also a safe pair of hands who understood the economy. Sunak showed hints of those qualities in his stint as chancellor. Dare we hope that his successor-but-one can reach for some of Lawson’s economic literacy now?

In a way, the dire political straits in which the government finds itself as the election looms could help to push Mr Sunak and his chancellor towards the right Budget choice. If, as it would seem, a Conservative defeat is already beyond doubt, then Mr Hunt has little to lose from putting country, rather than party, first.

Whether voters would then be so amazed that the polls start to shift is another matter. But at least this chancellor could take credit for a Budget put together with a view to the long-term national interest, rather than for short-term sectional gain.