The Chancellor is set to deliver her Spring Statement next month. (Alamy)

5 min read31 min

According to Treasury sources, Reeves wants to keep the drama to a minimum when she stands up in the House of Commons to update the House on the state of the economy on Tuesday.

Speculation and confusion were rife in the run-up to the November Budget, with the government abandoning reported plans to raise income tax and moving to reassure the markets that it was not planning to break its own fiscal rules.

There was further chaos on the day when the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) accidentally published details of the government’s spending plans before Reeves could announce them to MPs. The OBR error resulted in Richard Hughes resigning as chair of the independent watchdog.

The 2025 Spring Statement ended up being unexpectedly eventful, with Reeves making a late decision to reduce welfare spending to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules.

Here’s what to look out for ahead of next week.

What is the Spring Statement? 

It is one of two fiscal events the government ordinarily holds each calendar year. The other is the Autumn Budget, which historically has been used by chancellors to make the major policy announcements.

The Spring Statement is usually a less consequential event, updating MPs on the OBR’s latest forecasts for the UK economy in areas like growth, borrowing, tax and spending.

However, while the Autumn Budget is generally a more significant moment in the political calendar, the Spring Statement has sometimes been used to announce policies with significant financial consequences, often due to unpredictable or unusual economic circumstances.

For example, a year ago, Reeves revealed details of government plans to reduce Personal Independent Payments (PIP). These welfare reforms, originally designed to bring down government spending on benefits, grew into a major row within the Labour Party, forcing Prime Minister Keir Starmer to scrap the plans later in the year.

Why is this Spring Statement different to the last? 

At the last Spring Statement, the OBR also provided its latest assessment of whether the Labour government was on track to meet its own “iron-clad” fiscal rules.

Starmer and Reeves created these self-imposed rules to reassure voters and the markets that they could be trusted to run the economy responsibly, and they have remained key to Labour policy-making since the party entered office in July 2024.

These rules state that the Treasury must ensure that day-to-day spending is covered by taxes and that debt is falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of this parliament. 

However, the government announced late last year that this particular OBR assessment would only be published at the Autumn Budget, rather than twice a year. As a result, next week, there will be less scrutiny of whether the government is on track to meet its fiscal rules.

That said, you can expect Reeves to point to Office for National Statistics data published last month, estimating that the Treasury had a £30.4bn budget surplus — £15.9bn more than the year prior, and the largest since monthly records began in 1993.

What are economists saying about next week?

William Ellis, a senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said the Autumn Budget had the long-term aim of creating “a more stable and predictable economic environment” so that the 2026 Spring Statement could be a “non-event”.

“Nothing we’ve seen or heard so far suggests any likelihood of changes to current spending plans, or to tax, so soon after the Budget. That’s made possible by the Chancellor’s decisions in November, setting the public finances on a better footing by sticking to the fiscal rules, doubling headroom and lowering borrowing costs.”

Chaitanya Kumar, head of economic and environmental policy at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), said having the OBR update on the government’s fiscal rules just once a year means there is less chance of “manic policy making”.

“This sort of back and forth between the OBR and the Treasury didn’t really make for good policy making because, ultimately, you want to take decisions that will have impact in the medium-long term, at least through the course of the Parliament, and you don’t have to keep making changes every six months,” said Kumar. 

He added that there had been no “significant headwinds” impacting the economy since November that would force the government into major policy decisions.

This was echoed by Nick Ridpath, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), who said there had been “far fewer economic developments since November than there had been in the year before”, contributing to a “quieter” environment for the Spring Statement. 

“The combination of relatively limited economic developments and this boosted headroom means it’s very unlikely that the government will be sort of forced into changing any policy.”

So what can we expect in the Spring Statement? 

With this in mind, there are not expected to be major policy announcements on Tuesday.

Instead, Reeves will focus on talking up the government’s handling of the economy, referring to recent stability, her increased financial headroom, and inflation being projected to keep falling. The Chancellor will also likely focus on the cost of living, with Ofgem announcing on Wednesday that the energy price cap will fall by 7 per cent from April.

Her opponents will likely raise unemployment hitting a five-year high of 5.2 per cent.

However, economists like Paul Johnson have said that major announcements this week about reforms to Special Education Needs and Disabilities services (SEND), as well as Starmer indicating that he would like to spend more on defence, mean Reeves may be forced to set out tweaks to spending plans.

“The reason that I thought the announcement [on SEND] was interesting is that we were supposed to have had a spending review last summer, which was supposed to set spending numbers for the rest of the parliament, and yet yesterday we got an extra billion or so for SEND,” Johnson told PoliticsHome.

He added that this could store up future problems for Starmer and Reeves as they are “already right up against it in terms of their spending numbers at the end of the parliament”.

“If you look at the if you look at the details of their spending plans, it looks like they’re going to be cutting, cutting public service spending in the election year,” he said.

Would you want to be stuck in a loveless marriage with someone you hate? If the answer is ‘yes’, then good news, because Reform could be the party for you:

‘We need more prosperous families which lead to a more prosperous country.’

Reform’s Richard Tice dodges @AndrewMarr9‘s question over whether reversing no-fault divorces is his party’s policy. pic.twitter.com/9RpwHoFxU5

— LBC (@LBC) February 24, 2026

Evasive

In the video above, Andrew Marr talks about comments from Reform MP Danny Kruger (we know what you’re thinking, and yes – Kruger is related to notorious 80s horror icon Freddy Kruger). Kruger’s comments related to divorce, but they weren’t the only ones getting him in trouble, as we reported yesterday:

Many see Reform UK as a toxic party which preys on people’s worries to promote division. Now, one of their MPs is talking up the idea of the most divisive outcome of all – Civil War:

More yank nonsense but extremely dangerous language nonetheless and shocking that an MP would even think about saying this. It’s hard to be hopeful about the UK. https://t.co/LgTS2cz1rt

— cez (@cezthesocialist) February 24, 2026

Marr put the following to Tice:

Danny Kruger, you’ll have seen his speech today, and he wants to find government measures to oblige women or persuade women to have more children. And he’s also interested in getting rid of no-fault divorces. A lot of female voters around the country will look at this and say, there’s a lot of kind of quite posh white men telling us what to do, and we won’t like it.

Here’s how the government describes no-fault divorce (which was brought in by the Tories, by the way, in one of their few good moves):

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act (2020), represents the biggest shake up in divorce law for more than half a century. It ends completely the need for separating couples to apportion blame for the breakdown of their marriage, helping them to instead focus on key practical decisions involving children or their finances and look to the future.

Previously, one spouse was forced to make accusations about the other’s conduct, such as ‘unreasonable behaviour’ or adultery, or face years of separation before a divorce could be granted. This was regardless of whether a couple had made a mutual decision to separate.

Advertisement

The changes mean that a spouse, or a couple jointly, can now apply for divorce by stating their marriage has broken down irretrievably. It removes unnecessary finger-pointing and acrimony at a time where emotions are already running high, and spares children from witnessing their parents mudslinging.

Importantly, it stops one partner from vindictively contesting a divorce and locking their spouse into an unhappy marriage. In some cases, domestic abusers can use their ability to challenge the process to further harm their victims or to trap them in the relationship. The reforms will put an end to this behaviour.

In other words, no-fault divorce eliminates the potential for marriages to turn into self-inflicted prisons.

Very normal stuff, right?

It should be easy for Tice to say ‘we won’t end no-fault divorce‘, and yet he refused to do so, instead rambling:

It’s about creating incentives. We know we’ve got a demographic issue. And we want to ensure that women have got more options, more choices. And they’re not prevented or restricted because, for example, of the ever-rising cost of living, the ever-rising cost of childcare.

Ah yes, “more choices”, like the choice to remain trapped in a dead marriage with a person you can’t stand.

Unen-Tice-ing

Political commentator Don McGowan said the following about Tice’s interview:

Tice is going to find himself on the subs bench soon, alongside Anderson and Pochin.

His mind-numbingly dull speech this morning and now unwilling to back up his colleague’s, frankly disgraceful, remarks about divorce.

Advertisement

The Christian far-right won’t wash in this country. https://t.co/ewEaR42Uw2

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 24, 2026

McGowan is right to highlight that this stuff is just Yank pass-me-down politics. And it doesn’t end with Tice.

One commenter highlighted that Reform UK is taking advice in an official capacity from James Orr (we know what you’re thinking, and yes – Orr was one of the comically proportioned mobsters from 1990’s Dick Tracy):

pic.twitter.com/TdYfE1sUEm

— 🐟Dame Rainbow Warrior Shadow Home Secretary🇪🇺 (@SandraDunn1955) February 25, 2026

Novara’s Harriet Williamson also provided more information on who the guy is:

Who is James Orr — the far-right theologian just appointed as Reform UK’s new head of policy?

In this video first published in December, @harriepw explains. pic.twitter.com/VIk8shKlyc

— Novara Media (@novaramedia) February 20, 2026

Advertisement

Backwards

Of course, it makes sense that the human waste at Reform would want to turn marriage into a trap. These are horrible, horrible men, and the best way to make that fly in a relationship is to legislate against women’s autonomy.

Oh, and for clarity’s sake, Kruger and Orr don’t actually have any connections to 20th century movie villains (that we’re aware of).

Featured image via Parliament 

On 24 February 2026, a poll came out suggesting Labour, the Green Party, and Reform are neck and neck in the Gorton by-election.

Throughout the race, Labour have claimed they’re the only ones who can beat Reform. As such, it’s not surprising to see them report on the poll like this:

🚨BREAKING: new poll suggests there is just one point between Labour and Reform in Gorton and Denton.

Every vote will count on Thursday. Back Labour and choose unity over Reform’s division. pic.twitter.com/q8ocoMqKCP

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) February 24, 2026

Advertisement

Momentum

For reference, here’s what the poll looks like with the Greens and other parties included:

Data tables will be published by Opinium tomorrow pic.twitter.com/RMUJHHUW52

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 24, 2026

Labour have created a paradox for themselves here.

On the one hand, they want you to believe this poll is accurate; on the other, they want you to think they’re the only ones who can beat Reform.

Which is it?

The poll also shows something else, and it’s that the Greens have the momentum.

This is what the vote share looked like in the 2024 election:

Should the Opinium poll play out it would mean the parties experienced the following shifts:

• Greens: 10% <<< 28%
• Reform:  9% <<< 27%
• Labour: 50% >>> 28%

Obviously this means voters have abandoned Labour to vote Green (or Reform). So at this stage in the race, which of the two options do you think is most likely?

• Seeing the way the wind is blowing, more voters abandon Labour for the Greens.
• The voters who abandoned Labour decide to un-abandon them despite polling showing the Greens seem most likely to win.

People clocked what Labour are up to anyway, including former Canary contributor Curtis Daly:

You absolute scum bags, you literally cropped the Greens out https://t.co/nuG4XkGsDT pic.twitter.com/MGDNco1sdP

— Curtis Daly (@CurtisDaly_) February 24, 2026

lmao they literally just removed the Green Party — at 28% and 30% to Labour’s 28% among likely voters in this same poll — from the picture. https://t.co/qyoFn0A7Mc

— Luke Savage (@LukewSavage) February 24, 2026

All to play for

Journalist Barry Malone said this polling may clarify why Starmer turned up to support the Gorton & Denton race:

This’ll be why Starmer showed up. https://t.co/5Wuk478yd7

— Barry Malone (@malonebarry) February 24, 2026

Advertisement

We noted yesterday that it was strange for Starmer to show up given his record unpopularity. He’s so unliked, in fact, that he tends to turn voters against whatever he supports, which is why we covered it as follows:

Everything Keir Starmer touches turns to shit, so why has he turned up in Gorton & Denton to give his candidate a last minute endorsement?

By @willem_moore_uk https://t.co/pjRJuod9BT

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) February 24, 2026

Clearly, Starmer thinks there’s a shot at victory, and he wants to pretend it came because of him – not despite of him.

If the Opinium poll is correct, Labour are doing better than we expected. At the same time, this is clearly a party in decline. And if they do lose, expect the rumours of a leadership challenge against Starmer to increase.

Featured image via Barold

The US has told its citizens to leave, or stay away from Lebanon – and has ordered ‘non-essential’ embassy staff and their families to leave – as a Netanyahu-driven US attack on Iran continues to loom despite an erratic and deteriorating Trump.

The order is an escalation from the existing ‘Level 4 – do not travel’ warning in place. Israel continues to attack Lebanon, despite the notional ceasefire in place since Israel’s terrorist attacks of September 2024, which it has never honoured.

The US and Israel’s aggression makes their own people unsafe as well as posing a danger to the rest of the world, particularly Israel’s neighbours and nations that dare resist Israel’s land theft and genocide.

China and Russia, meanwhile, have moved to cut off what remained of Israel’s intelligence networks in Iran and have provided the Islamic Republic with enhanced missile, guidance and satellite surveillance technology.

Featured image via the Canary

Antony David Davies FRSA is a historian and commentator whose work explores identity, governance, and the politics of trust.

I have been openly critical of Kemi Badenoch, not in the casual, factional way that passes for comment in Westminster, but on the only question that matters, whether she could project the discipline and seriousness required of a Prime Minister in waiting.

In recent weeks, I have found myself revising that judgement. Not because she has performed a sudden ideological pirouette, but because her tone is tightening into something rarer than it should be in British politics, a preference for grown-up argument over viral commotion. That matters, because the country is exhausted, and the centre right cannot rebuild itself on theatrics. It must rebuild on credibility.

I wrote last year that Reform UK’s rise was driven less by a coherent programme than by voter despair, by the sense that everyday Britain is being managed badly and spoken to worse. That diagnosis still holds. But I am increasingly hearing something else too, voters who flirted with Reform are becoming more open-eyed about what it actually is, a shallow razzmatazz show, satisfying as protest, thin as a proposition for government.

The most revealing political conversations rarely happen at conferences. They happen in ordinary places where people speak without trying to win points, in queue-side grumbles, in family group chats, in that resigned national tone of “What’s the point?” Reform is still invoked, but increasingly as a mood rather than a plan. People mention it as a warning shot, a way of saying, “Do not take me for granted.” But the moment you ask the follow-up question, the one adults ask, the conversation changes.

“Alright then, what would they actually do?” Who runs departments, who negotiates budgets, who carries policy through the civil service machine, who stands at the Despatch Box when slogans collide with arithmetic? When voters start asking those questions, protest politics begins to lose its magic. That is what I am hearing more often now, not admiration, but doubt, not worship, but impatience with a politics that performs anger rather than resolves it. If Badenoch is finding her stride, Conservatives should not chase Reform. They should outgrow it.

Reform benefits from a structural fact.

Voters will tolerate almost anything from a party that does not have to govern. It can promise without pricing, provoke without repairing, posture without consequence. That is not a moral condemnation. It is the advantage of permanent opposition. It is why Reform can run on vibes and indignation while never having to convert slogans into systems. This is also where Conservatives lost their footing.

Too often they behaved as if they could borrow insurgent language and still retain governing authority. They cannot. The centre right does not recover by becoming angrier. It recovers by becoming more credible, and that is why the Conservative defections to Reform, painful as they were in the short term, may yet prove a blessing in disguise.

Recent months have seen a steady trickle of high-profile Conservative figures moving to Reform, underlining that a portion of the right is choosing insurgency over the burdens of office. In that sense, the defections are not merely a threat. They are a clarifying force.

Politics occasionally requires sorting. A party cannot be both a governing force and an outlet for permanent grievance. That arrangement produces incoherence, because every difficult decision becomes a betrayal and every compromise becomes corruption. Defections have helped draw a clearer boundary between two political cultures, one that accepts the burden of government, and one that thrives on the thrill of opposition. Badenoch does not need to chase every defector. She needs to define the party that remains, as the party that intends to govern again, seriously.

My scepticism about Badenoch has not been about ideology. Conservatives are a broad church. My concern has been whether she would be tempted into the easy rhythms of modern politics, permanent confrontation, permanent provocation, applause as a substitute for persuasion. What has impressed me recently is not gaffe-free performance, which is a low bar, but a tightening in her message and a seriousness that does not feel performative. She sounds more like someone preparing to carry responsibility, not simply land blows.

If the Conservative Party is to recover, it will not do so through endless micro-arguments about who said what on which channel. It will do so by offering something Reform cannot offer, a plausible route from frustration to a functioning state.

If Badenoch wants to convert momentum into trust, she should make competence the organising principle. Competence is what respect looks like in practice. That means choosing a small number of priorities and pursuing them with clarity. Public service delivery, spend honestly, fix procurement, stabilise workforces, and be accountable for outcomes. Law and order, visible policing and swifter justice are not nostalgia, they are the foundations of social confidence. Borders and migration, competence not theatre, control, lawfulness, speed, and enforcement that actually happens. If Conservatives focus on these, they do not merely argue with Reform. They make Reform look unserious, because they remind voters that anger is not an administrative plan.

There is also a constitutional seriousness the party must recover, and it begins with the Union. A Conservative Party that wishes to govern the United Kingdom cannot speak as though the UK is simply England with administrative add-ons. In Wales and Scotland in particular, unionism has too often been reduced to a badge rather than a programme. A serious centre right must speak to devolved realities with respect. It must show that the Union is about shared standards and shared institutional strength, not occasional visits and predictable slogans.

Reform will remain a pressure valve for public anger as long as the established parties look incapable of competence. But the public is not permanently captive to razzmatazz. When the costs of dysfunction bite, voters return to first principles. Can you run the country? I am increasingly hearing voters move from permission, “I might vote Reform to send a message”, to doubt, “But what would they actually do?” That is the moment when protest politics shrinks back towards its natural size.

Badenoch’s task is not to compete with Reform’s theatre. It is to make the Conservative Party the obvious home for those who want change without chaos, discipline without dullness, and a state that works again. If she continues to find her stride, and if the party around her matches that seriousness, then the defections to Reform will look, in hindsight, like a necessary clearing of the fog, not a defeat, but a sharpening, and in politics, sharpening is the beginning of recovery.

How can people see “olo”?

What does “olo” look like?