Reeves told to act with 'prudence' on public finances as OECD downgrades its UK growth outlook
Rachel Reeves was yesterday given a fresh growth headache as the OECD downgraded its UK outlook and warned the Chancellor to act with 'prudence' on the public finances.
Britain's economy is expected to grow by just 1.3 per cent this year, down from a previous forecast of 1.4 per cent, according to the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
And growth for next year is pencilled in at 1 per cent, down from 1.2 per cent.
'Momentum is weakening, with business sentiment rapidly deteriorating,' the OECD said, adding that the state of the public finances posed a 'significant downside risk'.
It urged Ms Reeves not to loosen the purse strings, cautioning that she only had a 'very thin' amount of wiggle room left to balance the books.
The OECD also warned that stubborn inflation – fuelled by Labour's national insurance and minimum wage hikes – could force the Bank of England to leave interest rates higher for longer.
It came as Bank governor Andrew Bailey cast doubt on official figures showing that Britain enjoyed the strongest start to the year of any member of the G7 group of advanced economies.
Mr Bailey told MPs that evidence from businesses painted a much weaker picture Office for National Statistics data pointing to growth of 0.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2025.
'The surveys are nothing like as strong as that,' he told the Treasury select committee.
'My own visits around the country are somewhat supporting the survey evidence.'
The darkening outlook will add to speculation that Ms Reeves will stage another big tax raid.
Yesterday, analysts at Deutsche Bank said they expected 'upwards of £10billion in tax rises to be announced in the autumn Budget '.
It comes as the Chancellor comes under intense pressure from Cabinet colleagues and Labour's Left ahead of the government's spending review this month.
The government is being urged to reverse winter fuel payment and child benefit cuts and dole out big spending rises, notably for defence.
But Ms Reeves was urged by the OECD to stand firm.
It pointed to the 'substantial' interest payments on Britain's debt pile that are weighing further on the public finances.
In its latest global economic outlook, the OECD said: 'Fiscal prudence is required… strengthening the public finances remains a priority.'
The report said that Britain's 'currently very thin fiscal buffers' could prove 'insufficient' if the Chancellor wanted to stimulate the economy in the event of fresh shocks.
It called for 'targeted spending cuts' as well as tax reforms.
The report comes just a week after a similar call from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to 'stay the course' in bringing the public finances under control.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
33 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
The State pensioners who will get an immediate Winter Fuel Payment boost
Many State pensioners were controversially stripped of their £300 Winter Fuel Payment over the winter. It came after the Government declared the benefit would be means tested but the issue has been highly contentious. It means the vast majority of State pensioners will no longer receive a £300 payment unless they claim a qualifying benefit. Since then Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced a partial reversal on the benefit, pledging to reassess the eligibility threshold to reinstate the payment to more pensioners. How this will be implemented or what the criteria might be have not yet been disclosed. This week, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced that more pensioners will receive the winter fuel allowance this year, although it still won't be universal, reports the Express. Officials haven't yet said how many more pensioners will be eligible. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: "We have listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means test and so we will be making changes to that. Join the North Wales Live Whatsapp community now "They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter. People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter." 'Exact amount will vary depending on your birth year' However, many aren't aware that if you do qualify for the Winter Fuel Payment this year, the exact amount you receive will vary depending on your birth year and possibly other circumstances as well. The Government previously paid the Winter Fuel Payment automatically to all state pensioners, but until any changes are announced, the current rule is that you must be claiming a qualifying benefit such as Pension Credit. Those who are of state pension age but under 80, meaning they were born on or before September 22, 1958, and who qualify will receive a £200 payment. But those aged over 80 - born on September 23, 1944, or earlier - will receive £300. The amount you receive is determined by your age and circumstances during the "qualifying week" of September 16 to 22, 2024. If you missed this period, you can backdate Pension Credit claims until December, so it's still accessible now. So if you're over 80 and eligible, your Winter Fuel Payment will rise from £200 to £300. Most qualifying individuals will receive a letter detailing the amount they'll receive and the bank account in which it will be paid to, this is typically the same as the one used for your Pension Credit or other benefits. An Age UK spokesman said: "If you or your partner claims Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or income-related Employment and Support Allowance, the payment should go to the main claimant of the benefit automatically. "You should receive your payment between mid-November and Christmas. Call the Winter Fuel Payment helpline on 0800 731 0160 if you have any enquiries or you don't receive your payment."
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper.
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Downing Street ‘welcomes' ECHR debate as Badenoch launches exit probe
Downing Street has welcomed discussion about changing how the European Convention on Human Rights operates. A Number 10 spokesman said on Friday it is 'important' there is discussion on how the system works, after Alain Berset, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said in a rare interview there should be 'no taboo' about changing the rules of the agreement. It comes as Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the ECHR had become a 'sword used to attack democratic decisions' and launched a review into whether she would commit to leaving the agreement. Asked about Mr Berset's remarks, a Number 10 spokesman said on Friday: 'Border security is vital to national security, and we welcome efforts to ensure the European Convention on Human Rights is being applied correctly and allowing countries to protect their borders. 'It's important there is discussion on how the ECHR operates to ensure it can safeguard human rights while meeting the needs of democracies. The Prime Minister has been clear on this, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration and government that makes the policy.' On Friday, Mrs Badenoch announced a review to be spearheaded by her shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson, to look into whether the UK should withdraw from the treaty which underpins human rights law. 'The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors,' she told a Westminster event. 'It should be a shield to protect, instead, it's become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense. 'This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn't just damaging our security, it's also damaging our prosperity.' She said she was tasking her shadow minister Lord Wolfson with examining 'what the unintended consequences might be' if the UK were to leave the ECHR. 'Because it is clear that the ECHR is a major issue, I'm not asking Lord Wolfson if we should leave, that's a political not a legal question,' she said. 'I'm asking him to set out how we would leave and to consider what the unintended consequences might be, not least in Northern Ireland, if we decide to go down this route, we must do so knowingly.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp suggested earlier on Friday that the ECHR could not be reformed. He told the BBC: 'I don't really take that very seriously. There have been previous attempts to do it.'
