Spring Statement: Potentially unpalatable trade-offs loom for Labour
"The world has changed" is the mantra we are hearing from the government.It is a phrase designed to explain and justify the chancellor's argument on Wednesday in what is known as her Spring Statement.The Conservatives are branding it an "emergency Budget", which ministers insist is nonsense, but it is certainly true it is a bigger event than it was expected to be just a few months ago.We won't see Rachel Reeves standing on the steps of 11 Downing Street waving a red box around and it will be shadow chancellor Mel Stride responding to her in the House of Commons, rather than the leader of the opposition as happens on Budget Day.
But other elements of the day will have a Budget day feel, not least in the overall vibe of whether Parliament and the country feel confidence in the government's economic prospectus.The backdrop is pretty bleak.When Labour won last year's general election, they said the first of their "missions" was to "kickstart economic growth".The thing is, there isn't any - the economy is flatlining.Plus, inflation is up and government borrowing costs are up.Then there are the big-picture challenges: the UK has an aging population, the benefits bill is going skywards, the dangerous international picture is demanding more money for defence and the country is saddled with huge debt, which attracts huge debt interest payments.Add to that the wild unpredictability of US President Donald Trump, the looming prospect of tariffs and the vast uncertainty over Ukraine's future and European security.All of which prompts the question: if the world really has changed, how much appetite now or in the future might Labour have for a really far-reaching re-examination of how it approaches government?With big and potentially unpalatable trade-offs looming, what alternatives could there be?There are loads of ideas it could explore, from the left, the right and everywhere in between. But let's take a look at a few, all floated publicly by some on their own side.
Loosen the fiscal rules?
At the heart of the political conversation this week are the government's self- imposed "fiscal rules". The government has chosen them in the hope they illustrate financial responsibility, a trustworthiness on the international stage that the UK can pay its way and service its debts.The two rules are that day-to-day costs are met by tax revenues and that debt is falling as a share of the economy five years ahead.They are, ultimately, arbitrary: managing the national finances is complex and multilayered and while governments will often impose limits on themselves in the hope of portraying credibility, precisely what they are can vary significantly.Former Labour cabinet minister Lord David Blunkett told the BBC at the weekend he "would like the Chancellor to loosen a little the self-imposed fiscal rules", adding that they amounted to "Treasury orthodoxy…at its worst"."I would lift them marginally. I would raise the self-imposed rule by at least £10-15 billion and I would spend a great chunk of it on what we did back in '97 with the new deal for the unemployed," the former work and pensions secretary told BBC Radio 4.Lord Blunkett isn't the only one – Jagjit Chadha, Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, has written in The Guardian this week of his scepticism about the value of the fiscal rules. There is another parallel that could be drawn too.Last week the German parliament voted to allow a massive increase in defence spending.The new law will exempt spending on defence and security from Germany's strict debt rules.Could, should, the UK do the same?Both the German parallel and Lord Blunkett's suggestion get short shrift from senior government figures."When people say change the fiscal rules, that means borrowing more money," is how one source put it to me."We have got to be honest about the implications of higher borrowing. If we did what Germany is doing, it could add £4bn to borrowing costs, not far off the prisons budget," they added.It is also pointed out that Germany's national debt is vastly smaller than the UK's as a share of national income.And there is no appetite to do anything that might provoke the international markets to go wobbly about the UK again, as happened when Liz Truss was prime minister.
What about a wealth tax?
Some on the left of the Labour Party have been calling for this, as have the Green Party and others.The idea would attempt to do what it said on the tin, but observers such as Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies are cautious about its likely effectiveness as a revenue raiser.Before the last Budget in the autumn a cross-party group of MPs suggested it, while Labour MP Richard Burgon raised it as an idea at Prime Minister's Questions earlier this month. Reeves has long distanced herself from the idea, arguing in 2023: "I don't see the way to prosperity as being through taxation." Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are fearful of being portrayed as high taxers and high spenders, an image plenty within Labour think has previously cost them dearly at elections.But could a one-off such tax ever be tempting as ministers confront awkward spending squeezes in places and that ever growing demand for defence spending?
Other taxes rises in spotlight
What about cranking up income tax, national insurance or VAT?After all, these are the big levers of revenue raising for any chancellor.But there is a catch: Labour promised not to in its election manifesto.They did, nonetheless, put up national insurance, albeit on employers not employees – a rise that is due to kick in next month and is causing considerable anxiety for many businesses.So why not ratchet up one of the others?Some say, for a start, it could further depress an already stagnant economy, as well as further depress the outlook of many on politicians' capacities to keep promises.On the other hand, increases to these taxes tend to lead to a reliable big uptick in tax revenue and because they reach significant swathes of the population, they don't energise smaller, often well organised sectors who can then vociferously oppose a more targeted and less revenue rich idea.A good example of this are the dozens of tractors on Whitehall as farmers in their thousands made their views known about changes to inheritance tax. Thinking about all this was hinted at, alongside changes to the fiscal rules, by the now former international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation last month over the cut in the international aid budget to bolster defence spending. In her resignation letter to the prime minister, she wrote that she had hoped the government would "collectively discuss our fiscal rules and approach to taxation, just as other nations are doing".She added: "It will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed just through tactical cuts to public spending. These are unprecedented times, where strategic decisions for the sake of our country's security cannot be ducked."Smashing manifesto promises is not something governments do lightly and Labour would tread particularly carefully around these flagship pledges on the economy, so often for many a perceived weak spot in the party's credibility.The tax burden, on average, is also generationally high – another reason these ideas could be a mighty hard sell even if ministers were willing to break their promises.And if ideas from their own side, like these three, aren't palatable, all of which make an already big State even bigger, there are those suggested by the Conservatives and others.
Reducing benefit spending
Cutting benefits much more is one such idea.The former Conservative and UKIP MP Douglas Carswell, writing in the Telegraph, suggested closing eight government departments, saving £24bn by cutting the public sector workforce and instituting a two year public sector pay freeze.He reckoned these ideas alongside others could cut government spending from 45% of national income to 40%.Many of these might not be instantly palatable to a Labour government, just like those from their own side, but all of this brings us back to where we began: has the world changed? By how much? For how long?And just how bold might the government have to think – and soon – if it really has?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Farage was the Spending Review's real winner
When Chancellors approach a major moment like a Spending Review, they tend to have a figure in their mind's eye – someone who embodies the type of voter they hope to win over at the next election: a Mondeo man or Stevenage woman. Rachel Reeves clearly had a very specific figure in mind for today's Spending Review. But unlike her predecessors, this was no Labour voter. Her Spending Review was laser-focused on Nigel Farage. Between a laundry list of spending pledges that would have you believe Britain is in a boom, Reeves took aim at Farage. She castigated him for backing Liz Truss's mini-budget and for spending too much time at the pub (arguably one of his best attributes). However, in choosing such tangential attacks, Reeves only drew attention to Labour's fear of Farage. Labour's spending commitments confirmed they view 2029 as a two-way fight with Reform. Record funding was announced for Scotland and Wales, ahead of local elections next year in which Reform are expected to wipe the floor. Days after Farage put steel-making front and centre of his campaign for Wales – at Port Talbot, no less – Reeves made sure to underline Labour's commitment to the steel industry, reconfirming half a billion for Tata Steel. This was paired with a cash injection for up to 350 of the most deprived communities: 'Funding to improve parks, youth facilities, swimming pools and libraries', with a focus on jobs, community assets and regeneration. In the absence of a plan to deliver real wage growth and long sought-after 'renewal', Reeves is hoping that, come the next election, quick and dirty projects can be plastered onto the leaflets of Labour MPs, in time for them to claim they have actually delivered change. You don't need to look far back to see whether or not this will work. It was not that long ago that the Conservatives also gave eye-watering sums to the NHS and tried to cling on to the Red Wall with an almost identical 'levelling up' plan, based on pots of funding for local regeneration projects. They too had Green Book reviews and bus fare caps, as recycled by Reeves today. So why double down on a strategy that was hardly popular with the electorate? With Starmer's 'missions' – of which only one even got a mention from Reeves today – so closely echoing the last government's 'five priorities', you'd be forgiven for thinking that Labour strategists are suffering from collective amnesia. Labour's failure to learn from recent political history speaks to their arrogance, rooted in a deeply held belief that Britain's problems are the result of '14 years of Conservative government'. It's why they came into No. 10 with no plan or narrative for what they wanted to achieve in government. And it's why they are pursuing the same strategy, choosing the same policies, to be implemented by the same group of civil servants – yet expecting a different result. The winner? Nigel Farage.
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
BBC expert HMRC tax £2,900 alert over pensions mistake
BBC expert HMRC tax £2,900 alert over pensions mistake In just three months of this year £44 million was paid wrongly due to pensioners being placed on emergency tax A financial expert on BBC's This Morning Live has revealed a simple monetary trick that could help individuals avoid being hit with a 'super tax' by HMRC over their pensions. Finance expert Laura Pomfret joined presenters Helen Skelton and Gethin Jones on the popular programme, where she discussed how people are being heavily impacted by being incorrectly placed on an emergency tax code. The issue arises when individuals, entirely within the law, access their pension lump sum early. Often, this is a one-off sum used to fund a significant purchase such as home improvements. However, HM Revenue and Customs assumes the person will withdraw the same amount each month, potentially leading to thousands in unnecessary tax payments. Ms Pomfret highlighted that in the first quarter of 2025, £44 million needed to be reclaimed by over-55s who had overpaid to HMRC. She elaborated: "To put that in context, it's around 15,000 people and an average of £2,900 each. This isn't a little bit of tax that's going off to HMRC. It's a lot." "This situation arose because, as you may recall, we had quite a significant change in the pensions industry 10 years ago. It was the introduction of pension freedoms, which gave you the liberty to access chunks of your cash that was in your pension and withdraw it flexibly. However, this has meant that people have been inadvertently overtaxed with these withdrawals." Article continues below Coletta Smith, the BBC's Cost of Living correspondent, outlined: "Crucial thing is that the 1st 25% of whatever you take out is tax free. Anything above that, you get taxed on. And what happened was that HMRC didn't change the rules that they had when this new freedom was introduced." She further explained: "So over the last decade, when people drew down some money from their pension. The tax man looks at that, say you take out £5,000 pounds one month, and that's all you're going to take out for that year. But the tax man assumes that that's month one and that every month you're going to be taking out £5,000 pounds, and that pushes you over the limit as a result. "So what happens is you get given an emergency tax code, that means that you are taxed at a much higher rate as a result and you have to reclaim as a consequence, and that's the process that people have been having to go through up until this point." When Helen queried the current status, Ms Pomfret responded: "So it has changed a little bit since then, so in April the government introduced um uh a better tax code process, which means that people taking regular income out of their pension get the correct tax code faster, ideally within a month rather than waiting until the end of the tax year. But it still doesn't help those people making these one-off withdrawals." Content cannot be displayed without consent She outlined a scenario involving a 60 year old withdrawing a £10,000 lump sum and being assigned an emergency tax code by HMRC. She explained: "This means it's treated as though he's going to do £10,000 every single month not just a one-off. So he's going to be taxed as though he's taking out £120,000. She said he could be taxed as much as 40 per cent." Ms Pomfret then highlighted how to recognise if you're paying emergency tax: "You need to know the tax code that you're actually on. It would either have a W1, and M1 or an X on the end if it's an emergency tax code." She noted that although HMRC will eventually rectify the situation, the individual might have to wait until the end of the tax year. However, there is an option to claim the tax back within 30 days using a specific form. Helen Skelton inquired: "What's this about £1 to protect your pension?" Ms Pomfret replied: "If you think about Arthur's situation he wants to withdraw a chunk, so what we want Arthur to do is withdraw a small amount first and let's pick £1. Article continues below "By doing so as the initial withdrawal instead of the £10,000, this action would activate the system allowing him to check the tax code set by the pension provider and determine its accuracy. If it's incorrect, there's the opportunity to amend it before proceeding. Once the correct tax code is established, then Arthur can confidently withdraw the larger sum, knowing it will be taxed properly."
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Time to step up and fix housing crisis after Swinney handed £9billion funding boost
Scotland's housing emergency is easy to ignore if you're fortunate enough to own your own home or have a secure tenancy with a socially responsible landlord. But everyone's personal circumstances can change dramatically. Finding somewhere new to live has become markedly harder in recent years. Mortgage rates have soared while the private rental market has exploded. Rising numbers of Scots across the country have been forced to declare themselves homeless to their local council because they cannot find affordable accommodation. This increasing demand has in turn led to multiple local authorities declaring housing emergencies. The end result is 10,000 children living with their families in unsuitable temporary accommodation such as B&Bs or hotels. Homelessness charities have repeatedly warned rough sleeping is also on the rise. The UK Government yesterday pledged £39billion would be spent on providing affordable homes over the next decade in England. Housing is a devolved issue so it's now up to SNP ministers in Holyrood to match that level of ambition in Scotland. The Scottish Government will receive more cash over the next three years as a result of Rachel Reeves's spending review. It's up to them to ensure this extra funding is channelled into housebuilding. There must be a joint approach with local authorities – particularly in our biggest cities – to ensure there is a huge push to build more affordable homes. Our housing emergency has gone on long enough. It's time the Scottish Government stepped up and ended it. Knife crime plea Graeme Pearson, ex-director-general of the Scottish Drug and Crime Enforcement Agency, makes a strong argument for upping efforts to steer youngsters away from violence. On the day John Swinney hosts a youth violence summit, Pearson says more must be done to provide alternatives for young people to help steer them away from offending. His call is an echo of the Record's Our Kids ... Our future campaign. But Pearson goes further and warns that many of those youths using knives may be lured into organised crime by the prospect of easy money. That point has been made clear in recent weeks when you consider the ages of those arrested in connection with the gangland feud in Scotland. Most are in their late teens and early 20s. Summits, like the one Swinney hosts today, must make clear the consequences of knife crime but also hammer home there is nothing glamorous about a criminal life.
