Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS
Rachel Reeves is a "gnat's whisker" away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned - despite the chancellor insisting her plans are "fully funded".
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said "any move in the wrong direction" for the economy before the next fiscal event would "almost certainly spark more tax rises".
'Sting in the tail' in chancellor's plans - politics latest
Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told hiking taxes wasn't inevitable.
"Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded," she told Sky News Breakfast.
Her plans - which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport - are based on what she set out in October's budget.
That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services.
Chancellor won't rule out tax rises
The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on "working people" - specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT.
Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is "very uncertain".
The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy.
Taxes on businesses had "destroyed growth" and increased spending had been "inflationary", he told Sky News.
New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% - more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world.
Ms Reeves admitted the figures were "disappointing" but pointed to more positive figures from previous months.
Read more:
'Sting in the tail'
She is hoping Labour's plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects "spread" across the country - from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester.
But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again.
It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a "sting in the tail" after she told Sky's Beth Rigby that it wouldn't have to go up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bowie challenges Tories to ‘step up' against Miliband's ‘eco-zealotry'
Tories need to 'step up' as Labour at Westminster and the SNP government at Holyrood are making the UK 'more vulnerable', acting shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie has said. The Scottish Conservative MP criticised both Labour and the SNP over their opposition to new oil and gas developments in the North Sea. Accusing the UK Government of 'overseeing the wilful deindustrialisation of this nation', Mr Bowie hit out at the 'frankly dangerous eco-zealotry of Ed Miliband', the Energy Secretary. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference at Murrayfield in Edinburgh Mr Bowie told his party: 'We must step up. Britain needs us more than ever.' The Tory insisted: 'The future of Scotland and Britain is at stake, our country's security depends on a strong Conservative Party to stand up for what is right.' He recalled how former US president Ronald Reagan had 'once said the first duty of government is to protect' – but added that 'on every front the SNP and Labour are failing to do that'. Attacking both Labour and the SNP, Mr Bowie, who is also his party's shadow Scottish secretary, said: 'They haven't protected everyone's economic security, by raising taxes, or ripping away their winter fuel payment, even if they are now apparently going to hand it back to them. 'They haven't protected our energy security by insisting on no new oil and gas developments.' The Conservative MP continued: 'We can all see what is happening in the world, there is more risk out there, we as a country are more vulnerable. 'That is why the decisions of this Labour Government are so gravely concerning. Their economic incompetence, coupled with their frightening ineptitude when it comes to our energy security is making the United Kingdom more vulnerable.' He attacked the Labour Government over its 'madcap drive to clean power by 2030', as he said ministers were 'actively accelerating the decline of our North Sea'. This, he said, was 'forcing us to become increasingly exposed to over-reliance on imports from overseas, imports that are shipped in diesel-chugging tankers across the Atlantic from America or from Norwegian wells'. The Tory said the opposition to new oil and gas developments meant 'investment is drying up, work is being put on pause, companies are literally shutting up shop and jobs are being lost'. But he added: 'This hostility for our oil and gas workers is not simply the preserve of the zealots in the Labour Party. 'The SNP have their fingerprints all over the job losses, the well closures.' It's Scottish Conservative Conference! 🇬🇧🏴 Hello Murrayfield! @ScotTories @Conservatives — Andrew Bowie (@AndrewBowie_MP) June 13, 2025 Mr Bowie added: 'We need Conservative leadership because we know where the SNP and Labour will take us.' He also used his speech to attack the 'snake oil salesmen' in Reform UK, insisting that Nigel Farage's party do not 'care one jot for Scotland, or for our United Kingdom'. The Tory said: 'Let me be clear. Reform is quite simply not a conservative party, not a unionist party, frankly they are not a serious party.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves is leaving Britain defenceless
Last week, the Prime Minister said that we 'need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defence front and centre – to make it the fundamental organising principle of government'. The unfolding crisis in the Middle East underscores the need to do so. Now, more than ever, our national security must be the Government's overriding priority, trampling on any other competing demands for government money and ministers' time. But it isn't. This noble organising principle seems not to apply where it matters most: the Government's economic strategy. In her spending review this week, the Chancellor gave us her own definition of security: 'securonomics'. This ugly word, reeking of socialist greyness and uniformity, means – to quote Rachel Reeves – 'government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy.' She is right about the need for economic resilience. For years, it has been clear that, in a turbulent world, the scale and structure of debt, combined with anaemic growth, makes our economy highly vulnerable to global shocks. Yet instead of rebuilding a fiscal buffer, the Chancellor has left us with a fiscal wafer so thin it could crack at the merest tap. Instead of bringing debt down, it will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today – and the cost of servicing it is already more than we spend on defence. And instead of supporting growth – critical to everything – the Government has suffocated it with higher taxes. Next, how has the Chancellor helped deliver 'security for working people'? For most working people, job security – the ability to find and keep a steady job – is key. Yet job insecurity is rising. By raising National Insurance on employers – a £25bn jobs tax – Rachel Reeves has provoked the biggest fall in employment in five years. Unemployment is ticking up. The broader definition of 'security' obviously encompasses our nation's defence. Although defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent GDP during this Parliament, this is clearly not enough. At the upcoming Nato summit, the UK will be pressed to raise it to at least 3.5 per cent. But in Wednesday's spending review, what was the Chancellor's 'choice'? To give the NHS, not defence, a bigger slice of government largesse. 90 per cent of the total increase in spending from 2025-6 will go to health. The NHS will see a record cash investment: real-terms, day to day spending is set to increase by 3 per cent per year, costing an extra £29 billion. A government that sees defence as the organising principle of government would not have made that choice. It would have made the case that we need to move from a state that prioritises welfare to one that prepares for warfare. And as part of a strategy to put debt on a gradual downward path, it would have made tough decisions on spending overall – starting with a reform of incapacity and disability benefits, which now cost more than the defence budget. Instead, as her speech took us from spending more on affordable homes, to car production to training to buses in Rochdale, the Chancellor disorganised her Downing Street neighbour's organising principle, showing it the respect Tracey Emin had for her bed. There is only one conclusion one can draw from all this. Last week, when the Prime Minister said we need to make security and defence 'the organising principle of government', he left off four words: 'for this week only'. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Wall Street Journal
44 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
U.K.'s Renold Agrees to $254 Million Private-Equity Takeover by MPE Bidco
U.K. chain and gear maker Renold agreed to a $254 million takeover by MPE Bidco, which the companies said would improve their capabilities and opportunities. MPE Bidco, a newly formed corporation backed by U.S. private-equity firm MPE, on Friday said each shareholder of the British company would receive 82 pence in cash for each ordinary share, valuing it at 186.7 million pounds ($254.2 million).
