ON Friday, it will be all over bar the shouting. But expect the shouting to be very loud and very long. For Labour’s honeymoon is going to be a short one.

Keir Starmer has promised change but neglected to tell us what changes he intends to make. I understand his reticence not to give any hostages to fortune, the better to let the gullible lend him their votes. But refusing to give leadership proves Starmer has no leadership to give.

For starters, Labour have committed to keeping exactly the same fiscal rules as the hapless Tories. Even an old cynic like me is poleaxed by Labour’s number one pledge this election: to promote economic stability. A wee moment’s thought will tell you that “stability” is the very opposite of “change”.

Either Labour think the electorate are dummies or Keir Starmer and his sidekicks are delusional. Possibly a bit of both. But the sad truth is that Labour are promising to keep Tory austerity. And that will provoke popular resistance within 12 months of the General Election.

Soon-to-be chancellor of the exchequer Rachel Reeves has been blunt in spelling out the fiscal rules which “will bind the next Labour government”. Namely: “That the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues. And that debt must be falling as a share of the economy” by the end of the parliament.

READ MORE: Anas Sarwar's 'implicit support for Douglas Ross' undermines Labour claims, SNP say

This is what she means by “stability”, the better to placate the City of London. Balancing the “current budget” means spending can only be paid out of revenue, not borrowing. With tax revenues constrained, that implies a major squeeze on public spending.

Labour are committed to a very modest 1% annual increase in funding for the NHS. And they are committed to a major increase in defence spending. That guarantees major real cuts to everything else. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons these cuts could amount to more than 3% per year, every year, in real terms. That is not stability, it’s more Tory austerity.

Reeves wants to bring down the national debt “as a share of the economy”. Why? So City bankers do not lie awake at night worrying the UK Treasury won’t pay interest on its debts. Mind you, the last time the Treasury failed to pay its debts was under Charles I – which is why they chopped off his head.

These days, the chances of the Treasury defaulting are absolute zero, because the government can always tax you more to pay its bills.

But Reeves has been having lots of City lunches lately and the bankers keep telling her to reduce the scale of the national debt. As befits a former employee of the Bank of England, Reeves is happy to oblige.

However, there’s a catch. Reducing the scale of the national debt as a proportion of the economy is easy if the size of the economy grows quickly. Indeed, most governments don’t pay off their debts, it’s just that the scale of the debt dwindles as the economy expands.

This is the equivalent of your mortgage staying fixed and you getting a better job. Except that’s not what is going to happen to the UK economy. UK economic growth has been abysmal since the 2008 banking crisis.

Most forecasters suggest a miserable annual rise of between 1.7-2% till the end of the decade, assuming nothing adverse happens internationally or domestically.

This means that the only way Reeves can meet her golden rule is to cut borrowing, not inflate it away. That means an inevitable brake on capital investment as well as on government revenue spending.

READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponent made millions of pounds from private healthcare

Disingenuously, Labour reject this claim, arguing that Reeves is magically going to increase economic growth. But we are in classic “chicken and egg” territory here. You can’t boost growth without increasing borrowing and capital spending – precisely what Reeves is pledged not to do. Labour’s plans for lower waiting times in the NHS depend on a big increase in investment in new technology. But if Reeves sticks to her avowed fiscal rules, there won’t be any major capital injection into the NHS.

All through the election, Labour have stubbornly refused to explain how they can keep to their fiscal rules and still avoid another bout of austerity. The BS will hit the fan this autumn when Chancellor Reeves must publish the next Treasury Spending Review. This document spells out what individual government departments receive in dosh and so what cuts Labour will have to make.

Reeves will cloud the issue with a few minor face-saving measures, such as putting VAT on public school bills. But Labour’s rendezvous with austerity begins this October.

Reeves doesn’t need to stick to such arbitrary fiscal rules – it’s a political choice. The UK national debt as a proportion of the economy is around 104%. But in the US – where growth is roaring – it’s almost a quarter larger at 123%. In Japan – hardly an unstable economy – it’s a stunning 255%.

So why tie yourself in knots cutting the scale of debt? You don’t even have to increase it – just keep it at the same level. That should satisfy the City. Then there’s the quirk that a lot of the UK’s National Debt is owed to itself.

During the banking crisis and later during Covid, the Bank of England printed a lot of funny money (called quantitative easing) that sits on the Bank’s books as government debt. Subtract that and the notional national debt shrinks by about 40%.

Alternatively, Labour could raise extra tax revenues. But Reeves has explicitly ruled this out. The Labour manifesto promises Labour “will not increase income tax, National Insurance or VAT”.

It also promises: “For the period of the next parliament, Labour will cap the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25%, the lowest in the G7.” That doesn’t leave a lot of wriggle room, assuming Starmer keeps his promises. Hello Labour austerity.

And we’ve not even had time to discuss the likely public disenchantment with Labour’s specious, incoherent plans for a Great British Energy corporation. Or what happens when Labour face the dilemma of fending off criticism for their failure to stem immigration with the need to attract more skilled workers from abroad to facilitate promised growth.

Or the fateful consequences of Starmer’s gut Atlanticism when it comes to British foreign policy. Remember Blair’s invasion of Iraq? As public disenchantment with Labour kicks in, what will happen? The crisis will come too soon for the disunited Tory rump so expect Nigel Farage to benefit. But there’s an interesting constitutional consequence.

Farage wants proportional representation introduced to kill off both the traditional Conservative Party and Labour. That debate could take centre of the political stage if the two big Unionist parties are simultaneously in meltdown.

And once the constitutional genie is out of the bottle again at a UK level, then Scottish independence is back on the agenda. This will make the 2026 Holyrood elections crucial for our movement. That is the election to watch.