
Labour is pioneering the Blackadder approach to public finances
After Labour took office in July 2024, ministers talked relentlessly about 'finding a £22bn black hole in the public finances on entering office'. It was a cynical, deeply misleading narrative, used to justify hefty tax rises unveiled by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, in her October Budget but omitted from Labour's election manifesto.
For the 'black hole' was, according to Paul Johnson of the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), probably the UK's most respected analyst of our national accounts, 'obvious to anyone who dared look'.
Labour deliberately ignored fiscal reality to serve its own political ends – a governing strategy the party now looks set to test to destruction.
During the second half of 2024, the Government's endlessly downbeat 'black hole' rhetoric and tax increases hammered business and consumer sentiment, stopping economic growth in its tracks as GDP flatlined.
The 0.7pc GDP uptick during the first three months of this year was a chimaera – driven above all by a 4pc surge in exports ahead of President Donald Trump's expected move to raise tariffs on goods sold in the US.
The UK economy is dangerously fragile. Inflation soared to 3.5pc during the year to April, up from 2.6pc the previous month, as firms passed on Reeves's £25bn annual rise in employer National Insurance contributions (NICs) and a hefty increase in the minimum wage. That's getting on for twice the Bank of England's 2pc target, ruling out any more interest rate cuts for some months.
That same NIC rise, introduced last month, meant April should have been a bumper month for tax receipts. But Labour's inflation-busting public sector pay rises and soaring welfare payments saw the Government take on £20.2bn of extra debt last month alone.
Meanwhile, borrowing for the financial year ended March was £148bn – a cool £11bn more than the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast just weeks ago in Reeve's 2025 Spring Statement. And it's an astonishing £61bn more than the watchdog's estimate back in March 2024.
UK government spending has long outstripped the economy's ability to generate tax revenues, as massive annual borrowing totals add to our growing stock of national debt. The last time we ran an annual budget surplus was in 2000/01, almost a quarter of a century ago.
Each year, the OBR pretends borrowing will be much lower than it actually will be – then the media fails to compare current outcomes with previous estimates, focussing instead on the political drama of future forecasts.
This result is a collective obsession with ideological narrative over fiscal reality. Between 2010 and 2019, for instance, the UK's national debt ballooned from 50pc of GDP to 80pc – a period absurdly dubbed 'the austerity years'.
In her Spring Statement, Reeves boasted about £9.9bn of 'headroom' she had allowed for on total spending of £1,351bn in four years' time – a contingency of well below 1pc, so small as to be meaningless. Yet she was dubbed 'the Iron Lady'!
That contingency has now completely gone, in part because financial markets, alarmed at Labour's high spending, have pushed up gilt yields and, therefore, debt service costs.
No less than £9bn of the £20bn borrowed last month was spent on debt interest. The annual debt service bill is now a grotesque £105bn – more than the state spends on transport and schools combined.
But the main reason Reeves's 'headroom' vaporised is that growth has slowed, resulting in weaker tax receipts, and Labour's tax rises will compound the problem by slowing growth even more.
The Bank of England's growth forecasts during this parliament are lower than those of the OBR, starting with 0.75pc this year, compared to a 1pc 2025 forecast from the official fiscal watchdog. If the Bank is right, Reeves's £9.9bn of headroom in four years' time turns into a £30bn shortfall, according to calculations by Elgin Advisory, a risk consultancy.
Such concerns about Labour's big-borrowing, growth-sapping tendencies are increasingly evident on government debt markets. Over the last nine months, the Bank of England has dropped base rates a full percentage point from 5.25pc to 4.25pc. But long-term government borrowing costs have moved a similar amount in the opposite direction, with the 30-year gilt yield surging from 4.35pc in the run-up to Reeves's October budget to 5.55pc now.
Markets and policymakers are at loggerheads, which spells looming systemic danger as the markets always win. For months, long-term borrowing costs have been above their peak during the October 2022 'mini-Budget' crisis – so where is the media outcry?
Within investor circles, there is now open talk of a potential 'gilts strike' – with the Government only able to borrow at very sharply elevated interest rates – or even a 1976-style insolvency crisis. We're not there yet, but the dangers are very real.
While the 'bond vigilantes' are starting to inflict pain around the world, with US and Japanese long-term yields rising, the UK is heavily exposed, lacking the 'reserve currency' might of America and with a lot of our debt held by overseas investors. Plus, a third of our government debt is index-linked – so as inflation rises, the balance sheet squeeze is punishing.
'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through'. So said General Melchett in that television comedy classic Blackadder, played by Stephen Fry.
That's Labour's approach to managing our public finances – but it's anything but funny.
The UK is crying out for economic leadership – in the form of fiscal discipline, lower taxes and other supply-side measures to deliver the growth needed to rescue our public finances.
But, like General Melchett, this Government – and much of our political and media class in fact – is determined not to 'look facts in the face'.
Hashtags

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


The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI
Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models. Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with the House of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models. In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords' request and reiterated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation. Beeban Kidron, the cross-bench peer and film director who has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday's debate that she would 'accept anything that the Commons does' after this week. 'I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,' she said. But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday. Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords' concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday. Kidron said: 'The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.' She said the government's action 'adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government'. Owen Meredith, chief executive of the NMA, said: 'the government's refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process. 'There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The government's approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an 'existential issue' this week. Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes. The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to 'opt out' of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals. Kyle has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government's preferred option, but Kidron's amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.


Sky News
22 minutes ago
- Sky News
Archbishop of Canterbury job advert goes live – and for the first time they could be a woman
A job description for the next Archbishop of Canterbury has gone live, seeking a leader with the "utmost integrity" - and, for the first time in the church's history, they could be a woman. Justin Welby left the vacancy in January after resigning following a damning review into the Church of England 's handling of a sexual abuse scandal. The archbishop is the most senior bishop and is the spiritual leader of the church and worldwide Anglican Communion. This week, a so-called 'statement of needs' was published by the Diocese of Canterbury, setting out a long list of requirements for the 106th archbishop. These include: A person with "theological depth" who is a strong communicator with people of all ages and backgrounds; Someone of the "utmost integrity who is able to speak honestly" about issues and injustices in the church; A "servant leader who shows compassion towards the disadvantaged and marginalised"; Being "unapologetic about offering a Christian perspective to local, national, and international dialogue"; A willingness to ordain and consecrate both men and women, support the ministry of both, and may themselves be male or female; Having previously "worked, and will continue to work constructively" around ongoing discussions around blessing services for same-sex couples, but also someone who can "embrace" both those who support and oppose same-sex marriage in the church. Women have been ordained in the Church of England for a number of years, but no woman has ever been in the top role. Candidates have historically already held senior leadership roles. They must be at least 30 years old - and generally younger than 70. Typically, rather than applying, candidates are "invited" to take part in the process. Earlier this year, a public consultation with over 11,000 people took place to give people the opportunity to submit candidates and desirable qualities. It is thought the candidate could be announced by the autumn, a year after Mr Welby resigned from the job. Mr Welby announced he was stepping down in November 2024 following failures in handling a church abuse scandal involving barrister and religious camp leader John Smyth QC. He is thought to be the most prolific abuser associated with the church.


Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Petty council killjoys just want to make our lives miserable
There is no more chilling a phrase in hospitality than 'enforcement notice'. The very nature of it – formal and aggressive – bearing the assumption of wrongdoing, of guilt and of culpability in ghastly misdeed. Thus, such an envelope was waiting on the bar for Vasil Vasilev, manager of the Trafalgar Tavern in Greenwich, when he arrived for work one morning recently at the 188-year-old pub. And what dastardly infringement was the establishment in breach of? He was pretty sure there were no roaches in the kitchen and no rodents nibbling at the carpets. The place was noisy, but no more than usual. The Trafalgar, which opened in the year of Queen Victoria's succession, is on the banks of the River Thames. And by the iron balustrade, overlooking the sandy banks of the river, on the cobbled streets beside the pub, are pub benches and umbrellas. And it's this seating that has stirred Greenwich council into crafting its officious missive. The planning inspectorate has ordered the pub to stop using the land for drinking and dining and demanded that all seats, tables and umbrellas be removed. This, in spite of the cobbled area of the Thames Path known as the 'ramp and knuckle' being leased to the pub's landlord Frank Dowling by the Greenwich Foundation, for which he pays an annual rent and having, he claims, signed a formal agreed with Greenwich Council in 2005 to use the space under what is known as a 'Section 16 arrangement'. 'It's just ridiculous,' said Mr Vasilev. 'We are not blocking pedestrian access – there's plenty of room.' He adds that there are three to four metres of space and as folk drink, there's a familiar sight of joggers passing and mothers pushing prams. On a warm day, customers spill out onto the ramp and knuckle, and admittedly, on a very busy day, it can be a bit of a squeeze for passers-by to navigate the merry throng. But the world kept turning. Until a council killjoy received an email or letter, which is the sort of thing that gets them up in the morning: a complaint. It only takes one complaint for a council bod to get fire in the belly, a rush of adrenaline through the veins. So, doubtless by lunchtime, they'd hit upon that slam-dunk reasoning that the seating was restricting access for emergency vehicles. Add to that the glorious words of 'people in wheelchairs and the elderly' and they had their unarguable case. As the council puts it: 'There are planning policies in place that we need to follow.' The message being: pubgoers might be having fun, but lives are in danger. So while thousands of people have used and continue to use the ramp and knuckle and with very few, if any, lives lost thus far, a handful of grumbles see the heavy wheels of the council turning: ahead is pleasure, and it must be crushed. And such is the state of our planning system; such is the demonic power-hungry appetite of a fevered council official, that the miserable few get to lord it over the benign majority. As Somerset Council recently wrecked the Milverton Street Fair, citing safety, so their Greenwich comrades seek to destroy some Victory IPA-fuelled fun in a little old patch of southeast London. Using some unorthodox tactics and against the odds, Horatio Nelson won his great battle of 1805, albeit losing his life in the process. Let's hope with rather less bloodshed this battle of Trafalgar also sees the right side triumph. And as to tactics for Commanders Dowling and Vasilev, they might heed what Nelson once advised one Captain Thomas Cochran: 'Never mind manoeuvres, always go at them.'