
How to balance the UK books: six options open to Rachel Reeves
Labour's high-stakes welfare U-turn and a spike in bond markets triggered by speculation over the chancellor's position has dragged the government's tax and spending plans into the spotlight.
Ministers have warned of 'financial consequences' after the backtracking on disability benefits and winter fuel payments for pensioners, which have a price tag north of £6bn.
Alongside a sluggish economic outlook and potential downgrade in productivity forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility at the autumn budget, economists at Deutsche Bank warn that Reeves could face a £30bn shortfall against her self-imposed fiscal rules.
This has raised questions over how the chancellor responds. Reeves has several options:
Likelihood: 1/5
Reeves has said her fiscal rules are 'iron-clad' and 'non-negotiable,' despite mounting economic headwinds that have made them tougher to meet. Her primary target rule requires revenue to meet day-to-day spending by 2029-30.
From next year, there is a little extra wriggle room: the rule will shift to a rolling three-year target, and will require the day-to-day budget to be in surplus or deficit by no more than 0.5% of GDP.
Several leading economists argue the fiscal rules are not fit for purpose and ought to be replaced, with pressure growing from within Labour ranks, too. Many economists, however, warn that financial markets would balk at higher borrowing.
Part of the issue is that Britain's fiscal rules have been repeatedly changed before, testing patience in financial markets.
Aiming to hit the rules by a fine margin, weak economic growth, higher interest rates and already elevated debt levels also make conditions challenging.
Likelihood: 2/5
After the U-turns on the welfare bill and pensioners' winter fuel payments, the government's ability to find politically feasible budget savings has taken a heavy blow.
Labour outlined its priorities up to the next general election at last month's high-profile spending review, which makes it challenging for the chancellor to find further savings. Reopening talks with her cabinet colleagues from a weakened position, so soon after the spending review, would be a tough ask.
To make way for bigger cash injections for health and defence the spending review settlements for some departments already entailed cuts in real terms, with the Home Office among the biggest losers. All departments were also tasked with finding savings of at least 5% by the end of the decade.
However, some economists say the size of the British state is climbing at an unsustainable rate. Spending as a share of GDP is forecast to remain permanently higher than pre-pandemic levels, at about 44%.
A fresh round of cuts would imperil Labour's promises to fix Britain's battered public services and for 'no return to austerity'. They could come with severe political costs if voters saw little progress before the next election.
'Recent events have confirmed one thing: spending cuts have likely reached their political limits,' said Sanjay Raja, senior economist at Deutsche Bank.
Likelihood: 3/5
Labour made a manifesto promise not to increase income tax, VAT and employee national insurance contributions (NICs). While party strategists felt this was vital to win the general election, most economists think it was a serious mistake. Several leading experts argue the chancellor should reconsider.
Raising the basic rate of income tax by 1p would yield an extra £8bn a year, while a 2p increase in employee NICs would result in about £10bn.
The consultancy Capital Economics said one option could be to introduce a new variant of income tax, for example through a new health and social care or defence levy – similar to the plan made by Boris Johnson that was scrapped by Liz Truss.
Some economists highlight the £20bn worth of cuts to employee national insurance contributions made in the final months of the last Tory government. Viewed by many as a post-election trap for Labour Reeves did not oppose them. Reversing this position now would be tougher , but could be done by blaming the Tories for an irresponsible and unsustainable decision.
One more palatable option could be to extend a freeze on personal tax thresholds. First introduced by the Tories in 2021, the 'stealth' tax-raising measure drags people into paying the higher rate of income tax. Due to end in 2028, a two-year extension would raise £8bn a year extra by 2029-30.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Reeves has previously vowed not to repeat anything of the scale of her £40bn tax-raising autumn budget, and has said Britain's tax levels as a share of the economy are already at record levels.
While the UK tax bill is historically high, at about 35%, it remains below many comparable advanced economies; including France, Germany, and the high-tax and spend Nordic states.
Likelihood: 4/5
Reeves could dust off a memo from Angela Rayner sent to her before the March spring statement, in which the deputy prime minister urged the chancellor to consider a series of wealth taxes to raise up to £4bn a year.
Suggestions included ending inheritance tax relief on shares listed on the smaller Aim stock market, scrapping the £500 dividend tax-free allowance, and freezing the threshold at which the 45p additional income tax rate applies.
With voters broadly supporting higher taxes on wealth, and facing mounting pressure from her own backbenchers, such measures would be politically astute.
One option could be to target the pension tax free lump sum. At present, individuals can withdraw 25% of a pension pot up to £268,000 as a tax-free lump sum. Restricting this to £100,000 could raise about £2bn a year. Another commonly floated idea, adding pensions to inheritance tax, could also raise about £2bn.
Likelihood: 3/5
Reeves has tried to court business leaders and pledged not to raise the headline rate of corporation tax. However, businesses bore the brunt of her October budget through a £25bn increase in employer NICs, and are loudly warning that further tax rises would hit jobs and growth.
Rayner's memo suggested raising corporation tax rate for banks. Reeves has prioritised supporting the City of London. However, banks have benefited from higher interest rates, as well as a windfall on reserves held at the Bank of England under its quantitative easing programme, which is losing the Treasury money.
Reversing a Tory-era cut to a levy on bank balance sheets, from 8% to 3%, could raise about £1.5bn.
Other options could include higher taxes on the gambling industry, raising about £3bn. Breaking the manifesto promise on headline corporation tax could raise about £4bn through a one percentage-point increase.
Likelihood: 2/5
Economic conditions have turned against Reeves since the autumn, but the chancellor could get lucky. Britain's economy grew at the fastest rate in the G7 in the first quarter and the Bank has cut interest rates twice in 2025. City investors are betting on at least two more reductions.
Despite Wednesday's bond market wobble, the UK's borrowing costs are still lower than earlier this year. If sustained, this could lead to improved forecasts for the government's debt servicing costs from the OBR. Monthly borrowing figures coming in below predicted levels would also help.
The chancellor will be hoping efforts on deregulation, infrastructure investment, and labour market support could bolster the economic outlook. Trade deals with the US, India, and closer ties with the EU could also help.
However, economists warn a rapid turnaround is unlikely. Labour's tax increases introduced in April have weighed down activity, while geopolitical tensions and Donald Trump's trade wars cloud the global outlook.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Step forward Comrades Corbyn and Sultana! It demands a special sort of dimness and self regard to make such a bungle of the launch of a new political party
Historians may – or, there again, may not – record that the Left's tectonic plates shifted at 8.11pm on Thursday. That was when Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana pressed the button on her electronic device and posted a message on X to say she was quitting Labour to 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Jeremy Corbyn. 'The time is now,' announced Comrade Sultana, 31. 'We are not going to take this any more. In 2029 the choice will be stark: socialism or barbarism.' Barbarism! The balloon had gone up. Leftist civil war had been declared. It was 'action stations' and 'en garde' and 'red alert', with the emphasis on the red. A Leftist breakaway movement had been expected for months, rumours building like summer thunder clouds. On Wednesday evening, with Labour rocked by parliamentary divisions over welfare cuts and with crisis surrounding the future of that leaky bucket Rachel Reeves, Mr Corbyn revealed an inch of ankle on ITV. Interviewer Robert Peston asked the former Labour leader – who was ejected from his old party by his onetime lieutenant Sir Keir Starmer – if he was really going to start a new party. The Che Guevara of Islington North stroked his beardlet, sat back on his sofa with just a hint of prosperous tummy, and replied that there was 'a thirst' for such a venture and more would be disclosed anon. Twenty-four hours later young Zarah had activated the fission. Kaboom. The Great Leftist Split had been triggered. Or perhaps not. As yesterday's brave new dawn broke in north London it became evident that a small mushroom cloud had formed over Islington. Mr Corbyn, 76, had exploded in the most terrible bate. Ms Sultana, with youthful impatience, had jumped the gun. The dramatic reveal had been bungled. In political terms it was a case of what old-fashioned doctors used to call ejaculatio praecox. Despite Ms Sultana's 'the time is now' claim, the time was meant to have been later, possibly on the eve of the Labour Party conference in the autumn when it might have had considerably more impact. But now the semi-secret was out, and it was running up and down the cloisters of Westminster with nothing to cover its modesty. They may be socialist egalitarians but Lefties are just as good at hating each other as Brexity Right-wingers. If anything, they do it with less humour. You only had to look at the sulphurous scenes in the Commons during Tuesday's welfare debate. Even after the Government had caved in, Labour MPs such as Andy McDonald, Imran Hussain and Ian Lavery were foul to the Government. What they now must think of Zarah Sultana, one dreads to think. To launch a political party is quite something. To bungle the launch of one is even more of an achievement. It demands a special type of dimness, muddle and vaunting self-regard. Ms Sultana seems to have thought herself a sufficiently big raisin to break the news herself, only to have her veteran co-conspirator rage at her impetuosity. Once he had recovered his equilibrium Mr Corbyn himself issued a message on X yesterday lunchtime to say that 'real change is coming' (NB not yet) and that Ms Sultana would 'help us build a real alternative' to Labour. You will notice that is not quite the same as confirming that she would be 'co-leading' the thing. Mr Corbyn's message added that 'the democratic foundations of a new kind of party will soon take shape'. Translation: you can forget about calling yourself a co-leader, young lady, until you have been voted as such by the new party's rank and file members. This new party does not yet have a public name so for the time being we should perhaps call it The People's Front of Judaea. This is not some jibe at Ms Sultana and Mr Corbyn's trenchant, some might say excessive, support for Palestinian independence. The People's Front of Judaea is the knot of political obsessives in Monty Python's Life Of Brian film, set in 1st century AD Jerusalem. When asked if they are the Judaean People's Front, or indeed the Popular Front, these scowling nutters become infuriated. 'The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f****** Judaean People's Front!' spits the ringleader, Reg. These days Reg might possibly be called Jeremy. Monty Python's satire harpoons the fragmentising nature of party politics. With each bifurcation, each indignant walk-out by politicians in proud possession of their most precious principles, movements become smaller and rivalries only increase. Eventually you end up with tiny cabals of harrumphing prigs who are more concerned about their pet causes than they are in trying to form a broad party that might, to quote the Book of Common Prayer, allow the country to be 'godly and quietly governed'. Quietness, however, is not really Zarah Sultana's thing. When she speaks in the House of Commons it is invariably in an urgent, tremulous voice, as if she needs to dash to the lavatory the moment her speech has ended. This one is a quavery commissar, making blood-curdling accusations about capitalism and Zionism and – dark organ chords, please – the dreaded Tories. Anyone who is not as Left-wing as her is, as she might say, 'barbaric'. All this is tremendously lively on social media feeds. She flies off the bat in a TikTok video or what-have-you. But in the flesh, for anything more than a 30-second burst, its rigid insistence can become tiresome. Mr Corbyn may have a public reputation for political extremism but in the flesh he is a less intense personality. He is softly spoken, can occasionally be droll, even charming. I'd say it is not impossible that, while he probably admires Sister Zarah's energy, he finds her rather exhausting. As might the voters. Put it like this: you would not want to share a space rocket with Zarah Sultana. She'd hog the oxygen. And this, perhaps, is the delusional weakness of modern politics and may explain the atomisation of both Left (Labour's vote being eaten into by independents, by George Galloway's Workers Party and soon by the Corbyn start-up) and Right (the Conservatives have been lopped in half by Nigel Farage's Reform).


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Crying at work - career damaging or just human?
Pictures of a weepy Rachel Reeves dominated the newspaper front pages and TV news after her tearful appearance at Prime Minister's Questions earlier this markets were spooked so much by her emotional appearance that the cost of government borrowing immediately jumped and the pound took a sight of most of us crying in the workplace is unlikely to move financial markets, but does it matter if you do? Does it show weakness, or strength, or simply that you're in touch with your emotions? Anecdotally, it's not unusual to have a bit of a sniffle at work. Several people got in touch with the BBC to say they had let it all out. Clara, 48, from Lancaster, said she had become emotional when she was a young graduate getting a "blasting", and years later "in frustration". "I've also cried after receiving bad news from home and left work immediately."Emma, meanwhile, felt she had to keep her emotions under wraps because she worked in "a tough male-dominated environment" and would give herself a hard time for "showing emotion or 'weakness'."Although some research has suggested women are more likely than men to cry, plenty of men told us they had also shed tears in front of colleagues. Guy Clayton, a doctor, said he had often cried "with patients, colleagues and families over the years, when I've shared their sadness".A 38-year-old from London who works in finance said he had become emotional at work when dealing with personal issues and felt it showed "a professional dedication" to still turn up. 'Strength, not a liability' So is crying a strength or a weakness? Executive coach and success mentor Shereen Hoban says it's old-fashioned to think weeping at work is unacceptable."We've moved beyond the old-school idea that professionalism means leaving emotion at the door," she says. "In today's world, emotional intelligence is a strength, not a liability." Career coach Georgia Blackburn says it's not unusual for people at work to be upset, so firms need to know how to handle and support staff who are feeling a bit she says it will mean workers get more done."An employer that truly listens, shows compassion and understanding, is so much more likely to keep their staff motivated and happier in the long run," she says. That's been the case for Amanda in Stockport who contacted the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio cried at a job interview at the University of Manchester 17 years ago, just after her father had been diagnosed with got the job and is still there. "I cried every day for about nine months until my dad sadly passed away. It just made me realise what an amazing person I work for, and what an amazing place I work at, where that was OK." 'Bring back crying' Fashion designer Amy Powney was having a bit of a rough time at the end of last was having an "intense" time leaving a job, and it coincided with traumatic things happening in her who founded sustainable fashion brand Akyn earlier this year, also felt pressure to be a "poster child" for ethical fashion."My to-do list at that time was: feed the kids, pick them up from school, sort that nursery thing out, design the next collection, make sure the staff are OK, sort out that VAT return... and then save the world," she told BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour."I went through this period of time where I just could not stop crying and I was doing it in public places, I was doing it on stage."She thinks that showing emotion at work has been "demonised" and is unapologetic about breaking down."I just think bring back the crying, bring back the emotions," she says."Women in leadership should be able to show their emotion. I think it's a superpower. I think it's a strength." Men v women, staff v bosses But not everybody thinks that way. Some people are still a teensy bit judgemental, says Ann Francke, chief executive at the Chartered Management Institute (CMI).Women who weep are seen as "too emotional" while men who mope can be shamed for being soft and vulnerable, she staff can get away with it more than their bosses, but this shouldn't necessarily be the case, she adds."When a senior leader cries, it can be seen as shocking or even inappropriate. But when handled with authenticity, it can also be powerful. It shows that leaders are human and care deeply about what they do," she says. But if you want to climb the greasy pole, it could be best to keep a stiff upper lip, at least in some organisations, says executive coach Shereen could affect your promotion prospects, she says. "Let's be honest. There's still a bias in some workplaces that sees composure as strength and emotion as instability."But she says some organisations see things differently, and value leaders who are "real, self-aware, and able to navigate complexity, including their own emotions".She adds that if you break down once at work it "won't ruin your career", and that what matters more is the bigger picture:"Your performance, your presence, and how you bounce back or move forward with intention," she says. What to do if you become tearful at work Give yourself permission to step back and take a momentYou don't need to hide your emotions, it often shows you care deeply about your job – that's not a bad thingBut you should feel supported, so maybe talk to a trusted colleague, take a short break or ask for support from your manager or HRManagers and colleagues need to acknowledge when their staff are crying – offer a tissue to them, don't pretend it's not happeningProvided by the CMI


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Chocolate lovers celebrate as new KitKat flavour on shelves of Sainsbury's
CHOCOLATE lovers are celebrating as there's a delicious new KitKat flavour that's just hit the shelves. Chocoholics have been racing to get their hands on the new Chunky bar recently spotted at Sainsbury's. Nestlé's new KitKat Chunky Funky is a crispy cocoa wafer smothered in a marbled mix of creamy milk and white chocolate. An eagle-eyed shopper boasted of their find on the Facebook group New Foods UK They posted a picture of the treats with the caption: "New KitKat Chunky Funky bars spotted at Sainsbury's!" Users flocked to the comments to express their excitement with one saying: "I need to try!" "Oooh this is a must have," added another. It follows Nestlé's announcement last month that they were releasing three new chocolate bars. The three new bars - KitKat Chunky Funky, KitKat Chunky Salted Caramel and KitKat Blue Riband Vanilla - are now available in stores. The KitKat Chunky Duo Salted Caramel is just like a normal KitKat Chunky but with salted caramel in its milk chocolate. While the Chunky Funky features a crispy cocoa wafer swirled with milk chocolate and a white coating. KitKat's assistant brand boss, Rida Ahmed, thinks they'll be a hit with fans. She said: 'KitKat Chunky has a fresh look while keeping the delicious crispy wafer and chocolate that our fans adore. "It's such a fun product, and we can't wait to see how shoppers react!' The triple launch comes after the shock announcement that Nestle had axed their Clusters, a breakfast staple loved by many. The company have also left shoppers devastated after recently confirming it has axed multi-packs of its Dark Chocolate Mint two finger bars. Dubai Ice Cream The beloved bars were previously on sale at Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Tesco but are now showing as out of stock on the retailer's websites. But don't worry, there are plenty of new treats hitting the shelves. New treats hitting the shelves Shoppers are filling their basket with Cadbury's Twirl White Dipped as it scans for just 89p at B&M. They're also going wild for Cadbury's new Dairy Milk Caramel Mudcake bar at the bargain retailer, with stock already flying off the shelves. The drops follows a string of Cadbury summer launches, from Iced Latte Dairy Milk with cool-changing packaging, to the nostalgic return of Dairy Milk Balls, likened to '90s Cadbury Tasters. While Digestives has launched a new pink version which tastes of raspberry and cream. And there's also a new mango and passion fruit Jammie Dodger. How to save money on chocolate We all love a bit of chocolate from now and then, but you don't have to break the bank buying your favourite bar. Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how to cut costs... Go own brand - if you're not too fussed about flavour and just want to supplant your chocolate cravings, you'll save by going for the supermarket's own brand bars. Shop around - if you've spotted your favourite variety at the supermarket, make sure you check if it's cheaper elsewhere. Websites like let you compare prices on products across all the major chains to see if you're getting the best deal. Look out for yellow stickers - supermarket staff put yellow, and sometimes orange and red, stickers on to products to show they've been reduced. They usually do this if the product is coming to the end of its best-before date or the packaging is slightly damaged. Buy bigger bars - most of the time, but not always, chocolate is cheaper per 100g the larger the bar. So if you've got the appetite, and you were going to buy a hefty amount of chocolate anyway, you might as well go bigger.