‘At odds with reality' – British media react to Chancellor's spring statement
Media outlets have roundly condemned Chancellor Rachel Reeves' spring statement, which cut welfare spending and squeezed Whitehall budgets.
While some warned of further uncertainty, critics accused Ms Reeves of mismanaging public finances, and some warned of a return to austerity.
The i Paper's editorial accuses the Chancellor of 'shackling' herself to 'restrictive rules that dictate what she can and cannot deliver'.
Thursday's front page: Balancing the books on the backs of the poor https://t.co/VyaBMyoVO4#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/NfVyXTEtme
— The Mirror (@DailyMirror) March 26, 2025
'We saw that at the Spring Statement yesterday: the Chancellor's intervention was driven by the need to please the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasters, not by a vision of a more prosperous future,' the newspaper says
The Daily Telegraph is even more damning in its condemnation of the spring statement, accusing Ms Reeves of being 'at odds with reality'.
'Rachel Reeves's Spring Statement exhibited the same wishful thinking that underpinned her calamitous Budget, a Micawberesque hope that 'something will turn up' to stimulate growth even though her own policies are largely responsible for thwarting it,' it says.
'Arguably, it was the most disingenuous financial presentation of recent times, making those of Gordon Brown look positively transparent.'
THE TIMES: Reeves squeezed by Trump #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/45iZNLUmEi
— Alfie Tobutt (@AlfieTobutt) March 26, 2025
Echoing the gloom, The Times writes Downing Street had 'little to be cheerful about'.
'Yet real optimism about the UK's prospects was sadly lacking,' it warns.
'Ms Reeves insisted the world was changing and with it the need to adapt her plans. What she failed to acknowledge was the role she herself has played in Britain's underperforming economy.'
Others point to figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warning the Chancellor may have to come back for more money in the autumn, or that fiscal headroom could be wiped out by impending US tariffs.
The Independent's leading article warns Ms Reeves may have to return to parliament in the autumn with further cuts – or that parliament could become a 'constant stream of mini-Budgets' undermining public confidence.
'The danger is that the chancellor will have to return to the Commons again in the summer, for the spending review, and then in the autumn Budget,' it reads.
'Perhaps yet again, in next year's spring statement, with new proposals for tax rises and cuts to public spending plans.'
Sentiments were mirrored by The Sun, which writes: 'The risk is that the UK's doom loop of low growth, stagnant productivity and high debt continues'.
The Government's decision to slash welfare spending was also condemned, with the Daily Mirror labelling the move 'brutal' and issuing a plea to Ms Reeves.
'There is still time for her to swallow her pride and admit her plans would be callous,' the newspaper warns.
'That would be better than being branded the Labour Chancellor who plunged 250,000, including 50,000 children, into poverty.'
An estimated 250,000 people will be left in relative poverty after housing costs by the end of the decade, according to official figures.
Tightening of benefits rules will impact around three million families on incapacity benefits, while 800,000 people will have reduced personal independence payments (Pip).
Finally, The Guardian accuses Ms Reeves of 'sacrificing the most vulnerable on the altar of prudence'.
'More than 20 people will be poorer for every one person her reforms push into work,' the newspaper says.
'It's hard not to conclude that Ms Reeves has repackaged austerity as 'stability.''
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Essential Air Service's funding might be cut
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The Trump administration wants to slash the budget for the federal Essential Air Service program and that could affect three of South Dakota's airports. State Transportation Secretary Joel Jundt briefed the South Dakota Aeronautics Commission about the situation. Roads flood in northeast SD, western MN The program currently is budgeted at $588 million, Jundt told the commission members on Thursday, and Trump wants to reduce the amount by $380 million. 'So that would be a fairly substantial cut relative to that program,' Jundt said. But, he pointed out, the U.S. House version of the reconciliation bill doesn't have that cut in it, while the U.S. Senate has yet to consider it. Jundt said airport managers at the three South Dakota cities that receive EAS subsidies — Watertown, Pierre and Aberdeen – have been in contact with U.S. Sen. John Thune and U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds asking that the cut not be supported. The Trump administration's 46-page outline says this about EAS: 'The EAS program funnels taxpayer dollars to airlines to subsidize half-empty flights from airports that are within easy commuting distance from each other, while also failing to effectively provide assistance to most rural air travelers. Spending on programs is out of control, more than doubling between 2021 and 2025. The Budget reins in EAS subsidies by proposing a mix of reforms to adjust eligibility and subsidy rates to help rural communities' air transportation needs in a more sustainable manner. This would save American taxpayers over $300 million from the 2025 level.' In other action Thursday, the South Dakota commission: Approved state 5% funding participation to accompany Federal Aviation Administration grants for airport projects at Canton, Faith, Vermillion, McLaughlin and Wall. Chose Bob Huggins of Sioux Falls as the panel's new chair. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. 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.
Yahoo
10 hours 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.
