Scrapping the OBR could be Nigel Farage’s Liz Truss moment

Nigel Farage says that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is “a Blairite-style quango” in an interview with the Telegraph this weekend – as if being Blairite is a bad thing.

“I have questioned the need for it,” he says. “We have to discuss whether we would be better off without the OBR. I am giving that very serious thought.”

This could turn out to be a significant moment. The Independent’s poll suggested that allegations that Farage was a racist bully at school did not affect his popularity. But if voters think that he would struggle to manage the public finances, that may prove far more damaging, and could yet turn them away from voting for Reform.

The democratic argument against the OBR is an obvious temptation for Farage. His case against the “Blairite-style quango” is that it is “effectively dictating to elected politicians what they should or should not do”.

That complaint is heard on both left and right: that the OBR prevents politicians from giving people what they want. It mirrors the argument against the independence of the Bank of England in setting interest rates – another Blairite innovation that constrains elected politicians. Farage and Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, have also hinted at ending the Bank’s independence.

Farage’s opponents must be hoping that he will be tempted to fall into this trap. Ultimately, the case for the OBR is far stronger than the case against it. It is a vital part of what keeps politicians honest – and a crucial defence against fiscal disaster.

We know this because it was only four years ago that Liz Truss provided a real-world experiment in what happens when you try to govern without it.

Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor, got himself into a terrible tangle when he spoke to students at King’s College London recently. He said he thought the OBR was “probably too powerful”, adding that “it really constrains the radicalism that you want to see”.

But it did not constrain your radicalism, Ed Balls, a professor at King’s, pointed out, because “you cut it out – and your radicalism was still constrained; there was something else constraining it”.

That “something else” was the government’s credibility with those who might lend it money. That constraint exists whether the OBR is involved or not. The difference is that it is less of a constraint when a government sets credible fiscal rules and has an independent body such as the OBR marking its homework.

If Farage were to abolish the OBR, he would quickly find himself in the same position as Truss and Kwarteng: rising interest rates, collapsing confidence and an embarrassingly brief tenure in 10 Downing Street.

Whether he pursues this idea will be a test of Farage’s seriousness. I think he will quietly drop it. I think his opponents are making a mistake if they assume he will make the mistakes they need to keep him out of power.

Even if Farage was only thinking aloud about ditching the OBR, there is a lesson here for those determined to stop him. His weak point is competence – specifically, his ability to manage the public finances.

Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and Best for Britain, the anti-Brexit campaign founded by Gina Miller, commissioned YouGov last year to research which arguments were most likely to dissuade people from voting for Reform.

At the top of the list was not Brexit, nor Farage’s friendship with Donald Trump. It was the economy. The single biggest reason given for not voting for Reform was that “Farage has made billions in unfunded promises that would drive up mortgages and bills”. Next came concerns about employment rights, pensions and the NHS.

Sir Keir Starmer should take note. He should ignore those voices urging him to be “bold” in setting out a pro-EU policy for the next election. Just as he should ignore the strident demands that he hold Farage to account for his slavish admiration of President Trump, one of the few people who is even more unpopular in Britain than the prime minister himself.

That is not how to change the minds of those who may be considering voting Reform at the next election. The spectre of Liz Truss – and the chaos that followed – is a far more effective deterrent.