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
Auditor general finds F-35 costs soar amid project delays, pilot shortages
OTTAWA - The estimated cost of Canada's incoming fleet of advanced stealth fighters 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 was one of eight tabled in the House of Commons by Hogan and environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco. The reports flag problematic procurement contracts, a backlog in applications for First Nations status and a delay in reducing the amount of federal office space. An investigation by the auditor general concluded that 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 critical 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, the number has climbed to $27.7 billion. That estimate does not include figures for infrastructure upgrades or weapons. The report says 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 says issues associated with the global pandemic — such as runaway inflation, rising costs for facilities and munitions and volatile foreign exchange rates — pushed the price tag sky high. Defence Minister David McGuinty's office sent out a written statement to media that blamed the increased costs on 'external economic conditions driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, including global supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, and increased inflation and foreign exchange rates.' 'In combination with increased global tensions and related impacts on the availability and demand for materials, we would not have been able to deliver the full scope of this project under our previous budget,' he said in the statement. But Hogan also warned Tuesday 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. 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 warned. It said 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 in 2018. The report said 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. It 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 said 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 said 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 been paid out already. 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.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Government failed to follow procurement, security rules with ArriveCan contractor
OTTAWA - Federal organizations failed to follow procurement and security rules when awarding contracts to the company behind the controversial ArriveCan app, the auditor general said Tuesday. The report on GCStrategies — one of several audits tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday — says the company was awarded 106 contracts by 31 federal organizations between 2015 and 2024. The maximum value of those contracts was more than $90 million but only $65 million was paid out. Auditor general Karen Hogan looked at a sample set of contracts to see whether they fell in line with federal policy and whether the government got value for taxpayers' money. Her report says many contracts did not follow procurement rules and organizations often provided little evidence to show the work had actually been done. The report says that, for half of the contracts that required security clearances, federal organizations weren't able to show that those doing the work had the appropriate clearance before the contract was awarded. Federal organizations lacked documentation to show that they had confirmed security clearances for just over one in five of the contracts Hogan's office examined. The report found that federal organizations failed to monitor contract work and performance. Many accepted poorly drafted timesheets or failed to collect them at all. Others couldn't show that the people doing the work had the required experience and qualifications. Hogan said that in more than 80 per cent of the contracts examined, organizations couldn't prove that the fees paid didn't exceed market rates. In just under half of the contracts, the report says, organizations had 'little to no evidence' to show that deliverables were received. Despite that, payments were still made. The report also says that most contracts were awarded without organizations assessing whether they should call for bids. Many organizations justified the need for the contracts by pointing to increased workloads or public servants' absences. In September, the House of Commons agreed unanimously to ask Hogan to look into contracts. In a news release, Hogan said the audit findings echo those from previous audits by her office which 'found deficiencies in how public servants applied federal procurement rules.' 'There are no recommendations in this report because I don't believe the government needs more procurement rules,' Hogan said. 'Rather, federal organizations need to make sure that the rules that exist are understood and followed.' Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement Joël Lightbound said in a media statement that while the report did not make any new recommendations, the government has taken 'significant actions' on past recommendations and continues to take steps to 'improve oversight and management of federal procurement.' 'Our new government remains committed to strengthening federal procurement practices,' he said. 'We also expect public servants and departments to operate with the highest standards of integrity when procuring professional services to support their program delivery.' GCStrategies was banned last week from entering into contracts or real property agreements with the federal government for seven years. Last year, the government suspended the company's security status. Hogan's previous report on the app's development found it did not deliver the best value to taxpayers and concluded that three federal departments disregarded federal policies, controls and transparency in the contracting process. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Britain is trapped in a never-ending debt nightmare
Britain is broke and broken. Not exactly the optimistic words you'd expect to hear from a new prime minister. But that was the phrase deployed by Sir Keir Starmer's office just weeks after Labour took power. While it set a gloomy tone, his sentiment wasn't wrong. Repeated crises have left Britain's economy in bad shape. The financial meltdown of 2008 destroyed productivity, leaving a permanent scar on wages. Lockdown changed our work ethic and Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine showed just how vulnerable the country is to higher energy prices. The result? An economy struggling with more welfare, more problems and more debt. Rachel Reeves is poised to add even more to the debt pile over the next few years as the Chancellor sets out her first spending review on Wednesday focused on hundreds of billions more for investment. Reeves has so far shown she is another tax-and-spend Labour chancellor. A £40bn tax raid last autumn has triggered job losses and is weighing on the economy. But could you do a better job? Perhaps you think the Government should be leaner? Or welfare should be cut further? Maybe you're even brave enough to scrap the pension triple lock? Try our tool to see if you can balance the books, and read on to discover why Reeves's debt nightmare is only just beginning. The numbers speak for themselves. At £2.7 trillion, Britain's debt pile is now almost the same size as the economy. Successive economic shocks have seen public debt repeatedly leap higher and successive chancellors have struggled to bring it down. Four factors influence Britain's debt trajectory: taxes, spending, borrowing and growth. In the past, chancellors could relatively easily borrow their way out of trouble, hoping that additional spending would stimulate the economy and ease the burden of the extra debt down the road through higher growth. This had the added bonus of allowing politicians to avoid tough choices on public spending. But Labour no longer has this luxury. A surge in interest rates since the pandemic means borrowing now comes at a heavy cost. The debt interest bill averaged roughly £40bn a year in the decade before the pandemic, with falling gilt yields often offering a happy surprise for the chancellor of the day. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) overestimated the cost of servicing Britain's debt by roughly £27bn on average between 2010 and 2016, handing the chancellor of the day extra wriggle room to cut taxes. Today, that room has evaporated. The UK will be forced to fork out more than £100bn a year until the next election to service Britain's debt. That's almost twice the defence budget and more than Britain spends on education every year. Debt interest costs as a share of tax revenues have risen faster than any other G7 nation, even though the US is now quickly catching up. Former chancellor Sir Jeremy Hunt is concerned that we could already be on the precipice. 'If markets start to question our ability to pay our way, we will be forced into a doom-loop of ever more growth-destroying tax rises and ever lower growth,' he warns. Rising debt in and of itself isn't always a problem. It's being able to manage that debt that is the real test. And Britain is failing. Economists call this equation 'r - g', where 'r' is the average interest rate the Government pays on its debt, and 'g' measures how fast the economy is growing. As long as the economy expands faster than the cost of servicing the debt, it will remain sustainable. This was true for most of the 2010s, even against a backdrop of anaemic growth and high borrowing. Rock-bottom interest rates meant even a weak economy could cope with debt costs. But this is no longer true after a surge in interest rates to tackle inflation post-pandemic. It's looking particularly ugly for the UK. Britain now has the worst so-called growth-corrected interest rate in the G7, analysis by Deutsche Bank shows. This means Reeves will have to impose even bigger spending cuts or tax rises to ensure debt starts to fall. Sanjay Raja, at Deutsche, says: 'The resulting higher interest charges seen this year will only put upward pressure on debt unless offsetting fiscal action is taken, or indeed, potential growth increases.' The needle Reeves must thread is trying to reduce the debt burden without damaging growth. Slashing spending or raising taxes pose risks to growth, which could hurt Treasury cash receipts and make the debt position even worse. Lord Lamont, who served as chancellor in the early 1990s, describes this as a 'huge challenge'. He says: 'The overall arithmetic doesn't look good, but the real challenge that's coming along is the ageing population and the ratio of the working population to the pensioner population, which is going to cause severe problems.' Official projections show that the number of over-65s living in the UK is expected to grow from just under a fifth of the UK population today to more than a quarter by 2074. At the same time, the working-age population is set to shrink from 62pc to 57pc. Only people who are working can fund public services. Children are a drag when they go to school, while retirees also tend to take more out than they pay in as they begin to draw their state pension and use the NHS more. The OBR estimates that the average teenager in Britain costs the state £21,600 every year to educate and keep healthy. By the time someone reaches their 70s, they take roughly £20,000 more from the state than they pay in, rising to almost £50,000 a year for nonagenarians. The looming pressure on the public finances cannot be overstated, with the ageing population set to push debt to 274pc of GDP within 50 years on the current path. Despite the costs, the Chancellor is still rolling the dice on borrowing. Last October's Budget represented one of the largest increases in spending, tax and borrowing of any Budget in history. A total of £70bn of spending was paid for with £40bn of tax rises and £30bn of extra borrowing. Changes to the Chancellor's fiscal rules freed up space for hundreds of billions in extra borrowing to bankroll infrastructure projects over the next five years, with the details of more than £300bn more in departmental spending to be set out on Wednesday. This is far from austerity. While this is within the spending envelope already outlined by the Chancellor in October, unforgiving investors will be watching her every move. Gilt yields have already climbed substantially since the October Budget, with even small adjustments such as the reversal of the cuts to winter fuel payments creating ripples in the bond market on Monday. Sources suggest there is an ongoing tension in Downing Street between Labour aides who want to turn on the spending taps and Treasury officials mindful of bond market jitters. Lord Hammond, another former Tory chancellor, knows who will win that argument. 'Unfortunately, politicians don't run the country, the bond markets do,' he says. 'As Donald Trump has also found out, if the bond markets decide enough is enough and this is too far, the game will stop. 'One might say that so long as politicians can borrow money, they will borrow. So in the end, the bond markets are the disciplinarian of last resort.' Worryingly for Reeves, it does not look like borrowing costs will come down any time soon. Michael Saunders, at Oxford Economics, who served on the Bank of England's interest rate setting committee, notes that 10-year forward rates, which predict what borrowing costs will be a decade from now, are at their highest levels since 1998. The difference – or spread – between UK and eurozone 10-year forward rates is up to about 2.3 percentage points. This is almost double the gap three years ago and the widest gulf in about 20 years, even though the UK and eurozone have 'identical inflation targets and similar sluggish productivity growth trends', he notes. Saunders says this may reflect a range of factors, including the UK's sharp rise in debt over the last two decades as well as stubborn inflation and pressure to spend. Nuwan Goonetilleke, at Phoenix Group, the UK's biggest long-term savings business, who manages more than £40bn of savers' cash, says the rise in the cost of longer-term debt will have particularly negative consequences. Reeves has made a big bet on infrastructure investment as a way to try to stimulate growth. Higher long-term borrowing costs could be hugely detrimental to that effort. 'If you've got an infrastructure project, property project, or something that requires any kind of long-term funding, it's going to be more expensive,' says Goonetilleke. 'That leaves a real choice: do you go shorter and accept an amount of rollover risk, or do you pay up knowing that you are paying a premium, because that's what the market is demanding for that uncertainty.' Another concern is the changing face of Britain's creditors. Boring and predictable pension funds and insurers are being replaced by hedge funds that are more likely to be fair-weather friends. Sir Dave Ramsden, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, recently highlighted that roughly 30pc of gilt sales now involve hedge funds, up from roughly 17pc in 2018. Pension funds and insurers invest over decades and are willing to ride out short-term crises. Hedge funds are motivated by short-term profits and are more likely to ditch investments if they go sour, threatening to make any fiscal crisis worse. If borrowing is becoming difficult, what about tax? It has certainly been Reeves's favoured lever and Angela Rayner believes she should raise even more. The Chancellor refused four times last week to rule out further increases to help pay for the spending binge. Analysts at JP Morgan believe tax rises of £24bn could be on the way this autumn as defence spending heads towards 3pc of GDP. Labour has committed not to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT on working people. That leaves Reeves with few options. Extending the freeze on thresholds will raise £9.2bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), and is one of the options on the table. But the tax burden is already on course to rise to a peacetime high of 37.7pc of GDP in the next few years and further tax raids threaten to crush the economy, which would fail to shore up the finances as intended. Labour has already placed a heavy burden on companies through changes to employers' National Insurance contributions. Almost 40pc of the money British businesses pay to employ a member of staff now goes to the Government – up from below 32pc 25 years ago. Andrew Wishart, an economist at Berenberg Bank, says this share is approaching the level which German businesses had to pay at the turn of the century, a policy that forced the economy into a 'lost decade'. Only when it cut benefits and taxes did Germany take its place as a strong nation again. The economy is already 'maxed out on tax', Hammond adds. 'We are at the point of diminishing returns,' he says. 'If the Government thinks that it's going to be able to solve the problems just by taxing ever more and more, I think it's going to get into a terrible mess.' Of course, Reeves could always cut public spending in an effort to tackle debt. But this looks difficult in an era when voters have become used to state support and Labour backbenchers are pushing for more. Hammond laments Britain's drift towards entitlement. 'The modern welfare state has turned from a culture of mutual self-help to a world that is based on rights,' he says. ''It's my right to be protected by the state.' 'It's my right to be fed and housed and clothed and provided for with healthcare and everything else, regardless of whether I contribute or not.' That's a very different cultural approach to the challenge of the balance of the state versus the individual's responsibility.' A silver bullet would be found if ministers could find a way to improve public sector productivity. 'If you can get public sector productivity to just under 2pc a year, you can stabilise debt,' says Hunt. 'That is why, when I gave the NHS £3.4bn for their IT systems in 2024, the deal was they had to sign up to 2pc productivity a year.' Official figures show productivity in the public sector remains 7pc below its pre-lockdown levels. Hunt says: 'I'm afraid Labour's done an appalling job caving in to public sector pay demands whilst not asking for any productivity in return.' This crisis is more than just a headache for the Chancellor. It is a problem for us all. Not only does it threaten higher taxes, it likely means higher mortgage costs and borrowing rates for businesses, as government borrowing costs serve as a benchmark for borrowing rates elsewhere in the economy. Goonetilleke, at Phoenix Group, says: 'There are real-world consequences from higher yields that will eventually feed back to the consumer. For example, corporations have been able to absorb a lot of price rises recently, but with higher rates they'll be less able to do so and that forces them to pass on more of that to consumers.' Wishart fears the Bank of England will not be able to cut rates again this year. As a result, he estimates mortgage rates will settle at around 4.5pc – rather than the 4pc they would have reached without Reeves's Budget. He estimates that this additional half-percentage point on mortgage rates will cost households around £2.8bn in the next year, or equivalent to an extra £820 of repayments for the average borrower taking a loan or remortgaging in the next 12 months. Can Reeves find a way out? Hammond believes fundamental questions must be asked about the role of the state if we have any hope of tackling the debt mountain. 'It just doesn't make any sense to carry on trying to do everything the state is doing, but to do everything badly by underfunding everything,' he says. 'It makes much more sense to have an honest debate about the scope of the state, and this has come into sharp contrast now because of the need to increase defence spending.' He suggests that the Labour architects of the welfare state would be turning in their graves. 'I genuinely think that the Labour politicians who invented the welfare state would neither recognise it nor approve of it today. 'It was created by Labour politicians who had a very clear ethical basis for what they were creating. It was that everybody must work hard. Everybody's got to contribute. 'But the deal is, if you really are sick, if you really are disabled, if you really are too old, the state will support you. But that compact only works on the basis that every person gives their all.' Official data suggest this simply isn't the case today. Nine million people of working age are neither in work nor looking for a job, with roughly 2.8m claiming they are too sick to work. Meanwhile, the welfare bill for sickness and disability is on course to climb to nearly £100bn by the end of the decade. Of course, all would be fine if the economy would start growing. As the IFS points out, if it just got back to the growth rate it enjoyed in the three decades before the financial crisis, Reeves would have an additional £28bn to play with at the end of the decade. That's enough to more than reverse her damaging increase to employers' National Insurance. Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic adviser at Allianz, says: 'Growth is the only answer to a problem of over indebtedness. Every other answer has massive collateral damage and unintended consequences.' In a warning for Reeves, he cautions that there is a point where increasing taxes 'becomes anti-growth'. This tax-and-spend Chancellor will do well to heed this message. Tool development by Mariana Hallal. 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.
