Hello and welcome to the FT's political fix with me, Miranda Green.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave a surprise speech this week,

fueling further speculation as to whether she will or won't

break Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise income tax rates.

Each of us must do our bit for the security of our country and the brightness of its future.

There is a reward for getting these decisions right.

It's fair to say her speech was unconventional.

Chances tend to stay silent ahead of a budget and yet there was Reeves at 8am on a Tuesday morning,

just three weeks out, addressing an expectant nation, and hoping to adjust those expectations.

Here to discuss whether it worked, I'm joined by my esteemed colleagues. Deputy political editor,

Jim Pickard, hi Jim. I'm Miranda. The FD's economics editor, Sam Fleming. Hi, Sam. Hi, Miranda.

And our markets columnist co-host of the unhedged podcast and today's expert witness, Katie Martin.

Hello, Katie. Don't ask any hard questions. So following Reeves's speech, the budget guessing game continues seemingly endlessly.

As we discussed last week on the podcast, the size of the fiscal black hole is not precisely known.

The point is it's there and it's huge, Sam.

You wrote this week about Reeves's options. I suppose there's a debate, even internally here at the F.T, about which way is she going to go? Is it going to be a sort of smorgasbord of measures which will annoy and irritate groups of people? Or will she take this huge political decision? one big hit, breaking Labor's central manifesto

promises not to raise either income tax, national insurance or VAT?

That's right.

That's the central decision.

Are they going to violate the manifesto?

The advantage of violating the manifesto is they can do one big measure.

Economists would very much welcome one big measure like raising income tax,

...