Reeves is gaslighting the public with her £50bn fiddle
Last week, the Chancellor tried to use the Spring Statement to burnish her more hawkish credentials and reassure the public and the markets that she was in control of the public finances.
She told the House of Commons that she would 'never take risks with the public finances and would never do anything to put household finances in danger'. If meeting the 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules required £15bn of welfare and spending cuts, then so be it.
In the Chancellor's mind, the anger within her own party caused by these cuts – in particular to cuts in disability and health related benefits – are just a political problem to be handled in order to achieve the bigger strategic prize of restoring order to the public finances.
She justified such an approach in the face of an increasingly outraged Parliamentary Labour Party by arguing: 'The responsible choice is to reduce our levels of debt and borrowing in the years ahead, so that we can spend more on the priorities of working people, and that is exactly what this Government will do.'
The big problem with this statement is that it isn't true.
The Spring Statement increased debt and borrowing compared to the plans published in the Budget last year. Reducing debt and borrowing from those incredibly high levels is exactly what the Government should be doing to guard against the changing world we keep hearing so much about.
Yet it is precisely the opposite of what they are doing.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) could not be clearer when they say 'borrowing is projected to be £3.5bn higher and debt 0.6pc of GDP higher at the end of the decade than in our October forecast'. You read that right, higher.
In fact, borrowing is going up by nearly £50bn over the next five years.
I am not sure how to describe a political and economic strategy that leaves your own side attacking you for not increasing borrowing when, in fact, you have done just that to the tune of £50bn. But this sort of thing happens when you repeatedly say one thing and in fact are doing something completely different. And the Spring Statement was full of such sophistry.
As mentioned above, the Chancellor pledged to restore stability to the public finances yet within five months of massively increasing spending had to announce it wouldn't be going up by quite so much.
She claimed that 'this statement does not contain any further tax increases' despite it containing £200m of council tax rises and £500m of visa charge increases.
She promised to work with the Bank of England to reduce inflation shortly before announcing that it was in fact now forecast to be 0.6 percentage points higher this year than previously thought.
And she heralded cuts to interest rates when the OBR assumes they will now be 0.25 percentage points higher than in October.
Time and time again the Chancellor said one thing but the data said something else.
To tell so many half-truths in one half-an-hour speech, the worst of which was the claim to be cutting debt and borrowing when you had just increased both, is not just potentially misleading the House of Commons, it is gaslighting the British people.
Readers may well think that is simply what politicians do. But I think this goes to the heart of the debate that is now raging with regards to the Government's economic agenda.
Since the Spring Statement, everyone has been picking over the details of the cuts or arguing about the OBR and the fiscal rules. And that's understandable because of the way the Chancellor framed the event.
She positioned herself as a fiscal hawk determined to press ahead with spending cuts in order to 'restore stability'. But this is missing the bigger picture.
This Government has overseen a massive increase in the size of the state. It has increased, and is increasing, public spending, to unsustainable levels.
In order to do so it has taxed the growth generating private sector into the ground and ramped up borrowing which has caused inflation and interest rates to stay higher for longer – punishing households and businesses alike.
The fiscal rules are just the means chosen by the Chancellor to enable this agenda. The OBR merely the judge as to how she is doing against these rules. And a small-scale slowing down of the rise in welfare spending, a drop in the fiscal ocean.
It is the overall levels of tax, spending and borrowing that ought to be the real target of Labour MPs' and everyone else's anger. Because we are paying the price for the Government's gamble that increasing spending would drive growth but not inflation. And this gamble has failed.
The Government overreached itself in the autumn Budget. And regrettably shows no signs of changing course. And to make matters worse it looks like they are going to continue to pretend that up is down, and down is up.
Adam Smith is former chief of staff to Jeremy Hunt
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Audit General finds F-35 costs soar amid project delays, pilot shortages
OTTAWA - The cost of Canada's incoming fleet of advanced stealth fighters has exploded by nearly 50 per cent in just a few years, auditor general Karen Hogan said Tuesday in a new report. The fighter jet audit is one of eight tabled in the House of Commons by Hogan and environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco which flagged problematic procurement contracts, a backlog in applications for First Nations status and a lag in reducing federal office space. An investigation by the auditor general of Canada finds costs associated with the F-35 advanced fighter jet program are running $8.7 billion higher than the original estimates. And it warns the program is being plagued by delays and crucial shortfalls — including a lack of qualified pilots. The report lands in the middle of an active review ordered by Prime Minister Mark Carney to examine possible alternatives to the F-35. He ordered the review in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war with Canada. National Defence said in 2022 the base price for the F-35s would be $19 billion — just two years later, that number has climbed to $27.7 billion. That does not include estimates for infrastructure upgrades or weapons. The report found the department's 2022 estimates relied on outdated data from 2019 - despite the availability of better estimates showing 'that costs of the aircraft had already increased substantially.' The audit finds issues associated with the global pandemic – such as runaway inflation, rising facilities and munitions costs and volatile foreign exchange rates – pushed the price tag sky high. Auditor general Karen Hogan also warns that the program faces 'significant risks that could jeopardize the timely introduction of the new fleet.' She said the department successfully identified the risks but has not planned appropriately to mitigate them. Construction of two new fighter squadron facilities — in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que. — is running three years behind schedule. The report says the facilities will not be ready until at least 2031 because the department needs to 'redo important elements' of their design. The department started planning the new facilities in 2020 before the government had settled on the F-35, but the aircraft comes with significant infrastructure security requirements. 'Costs to develop an interim solution to support the new jets will further increase infrastructure expenses,' the report warns. It says the department produced a contingency plan to operate the aircraft from temporary facilities but the plan fell short because it was incomplete and offered 'no proposed actions nor a cost estimate.' Canada is also still short of qualified pilots to fly the advanced aircraft — despite being warned about this back in 2018. The report says the F-35 program lacks measures to minimize potential risks and the department failed to produce robust contingency plans. It notes that the department identified cost overruns from inflation and currency fluctuations as potential risks to monitor, but plans to track those risks were never approved by officials. The Liberal government announced in 2017 it planned to purchase 88 new fighter jets and signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the F-35s in 2023. The modern jets are needed to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet, which is nearing the end of its service life. The fighter jets are expected to be delivered between 2026 and 2032. Over the next two years, the initial eight will be sent to a U.S. air force base in Arizona, where Canadian pilots will be trained to fly them. The rest will be delivered to Canada starting in 2028. The report says the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office conducted various assessments that uncovered 'significant issues,' such as 'insufficient departmental engineering personnel to service support equipment for both the CF-18 Hornet and CF-35A during the transition.' The audit says that at the end of the last fiscal year in March, National Defence earmarked $935 million for the U.S. government for the first four jets and related items needed to produce another eight aircraft. It says about $197 million has already been paid out. On top of that, National Defence spent another $516 million on the project, including $270 million in infrastructure costs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published on June 10, 2025.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Two Israeli ministers sanctioned by UK for ‘inciting extremist violence'
The UK has sanctioned two Israeli government ministers for 'inciting violence' and abuses of Palestinian human rights, David Lammy has said. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister respectively, will be subject to a travel ban and asset freeze. The UK is taking the action to ramp up pressure on Israel alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. Mr Lammy said the two Israeli ministers had been 'inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months, they have been encouraging egregious abuses of human rights'. In a joint statement with foreign ministers from the four other countries who have announced sanctions, the Foreign Secretary said the two senior Israelis had also incited 'serious abuses of Palestinian human rights'. The statement added: 'These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now – to hold those responsible to account.' Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir both belong to right-wing parties which help to prop up Benjamin Netanyahu's fragile coalition government. Both have been criticised for their hardline stance on the war in Gaza. Mr Smotrich has campaigned against allowing aid into Gaza, and also supported the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law. Meanwhile, Mr Ben-Gvir has called for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory. Asked if the Israeli government's actions in the Palestinian territories amounted to ethnic cleansing, Mr Lammy told reporters at the Foreign Office: 'I was clear to the House of Commons back in September that we did believe that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, and that's why we made a decision to suspend arms (sales). 'Today we are making a decision also to stand against those who encourage abuses of human rights, also to stand against those who encourage violence against Palestinian people.' The Foreign Secretary did not directly answer when asked why similar action had not been taken against Mr Netanyahu, and called on the Israeli government to 'disavow and condemn' the language used by the two ministers. Asked whether the UK would encourage Mr Netanyahu to sack the ministers, Mr Lammy said: 'The Israeli government will make their own determination.' But from the UK's perspective, he said: 'We have to be clear that we act when we see these egregious individuals encouraging – encouraging – abuses of human rights in this way.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Child Benefit changes on cards after Martin Lewis' WhatsApp from Rachel Reeves
Child Benefit changes could be on the cards as Martin Lewis mentioned in a Newsnight appearance, in which he shared that Rachel Reeves had sent hm a WhatsApp message following the winter fuel payment u-turn. On Newsnight, the Money Saving Expert founder said: "I've been complaining about the Child Benefit Higher Income tax clawback for years, because what that does is that it says if the highest earner in the household earns over £80,000, you don't get Child Benefit. "So then you've got two neighbours who earn just under £60,000, so that's £120,000 for that family. They get Child Benefit. Their next door neighbour, one earns £80,000, one earns nothing, they don't get it. "I have been told for years that we can't split a household payment into a personal tax payment, which is exactly what the government has just done. "So when I got a WhatsApp today from Rachel Reeves telling me, 'sorry I couldn't explain to you in person', because I've been lobbying hard that we need to change on this (winter fuel payment changes), my first reply back is, 'this is wonderful news, and I am relieved, and this is a massive improvement, and I think it will take a lot of pressure off a lot of vulnerable people'. But I did also say, 'by the way, can we now do it for Child Benefit'?." The high-income child benefit charge applies if you or your partner earn more than £60,000. Under current rules, you need to file a self-assessment tax return to pay the charge, but it was mentioned in the Spring Statement that this will soon be available to pay directly through PAYE. Once registered with HMRC, parents should be able to choose to have their HICBC collected through their monthly pay packet, meaning they'll no longer need to file a return for that purpose. "I got a Whatsapp today from Rachel Reeves..." Martin Lewis tells @vicderbyshire he has been texting the Chancellor on how her Winter Fuel U-turn could pave the way for a new approach to Child Benefit payments. #Newsnight — BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) June 9, 2025 From April 7 2025, parents receive £26.05 a week (£1,355 a year) for their eldest or only child and £17.25 a week (£897 a year) for each additional child. These figures are a 1.7% increase on the £1,331 a year for the eldest child and £881 a year for each additional child paid in 2024-25 For now, if your income is over the threshold, you can choose to either get Child Benefit payments and pay any tax charge at the end of each tax year, or opt out of getting payments and not pay the tax charge. You should still fill in the Child Benefit claim form. You need to state on the form that you do not want to get payments. You need to fill in the claim form if you want to: get National Insurance credits, which count towards your State Pension get your child a National Insurance number without them having to apply for one - they'll usually get the number before they turn 16 years old Recommended reading: Some parents are owed thousands by HMRC - check if you are eligible Need a last-minute Father's Day gift? We've got it covered Family holidays for less than £250 across France, Spain and Italy No, and this is the cause of a great deal of confusion, as Martin Lewis has explained on his website Money Saving Expert. "Child Benefit is a universal payment made for every child you have," he says. "It should accurately be called the 'two-child limit for Universal Credit or Tax Credits'. "This one applies to the benefits that people who have low incomes, whether they're working or not working, get. That's what this is about. "And in simple terms, it means if you have more than two children, then you won't get any additional benefit for the costs that they are incurring you (on Universal Credit and Tax Credits)."