logo
Tories demand OBR steps in to scrutinise Rachel Reeves' spending plans amid alarm that her sums don't add up without tax hikes

Tories demand OBR steps in to scrutinise Rachel Reeves' spending plans amid alarm that her sums don't add up without tax hikes

Daily Mail​16 hours ago

The Tories have demanded the Office for Budget Responsibility steps in to scrutinise Labour's spending plans amid claims the 'fantasy sums' don't add up.
Conservative MP Gareth Davies, the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, called for the watchdog to assess Chancellor Rachel Reeves ' proposals.
Ms Reeves used her Spending Review on Wednesday to set out plans to 'invest' a staggering £4trillion to fund 'the renewal of Britain' over the coming years.
The Chancellor outlined day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years.
She repeatedly said the cost of her Spending Review was covered by the tax rises she brought in last year, telling Whitehall departments to now 'live within their means'.
But Ms Reeves also failed to rule out hammering households with further tax hikes at her autumn budget amid deepening economic gloom.
Experts have warned a weakening economy and extra spending pledges - such Labour's U-turn on winter fuel payments - mean taxes are likely to go up again.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies delivered a withering assessment of the Chancellor's spending plans and warned that tax rises look 'almost inevitable'.
Rachel Reeves just became the first Chancellor in history to deny OBR scrutiny of a Spending Review.
If the Chancellor doesn't have confidence in her numbers, why should we have confidence in her? 👇 pic.twitter.com/HYDbTYS4gL
— Gareth Davies MP (@GarethDavies_MP) June 13, 2025
The think-tank's director Paul Johnson said he would be 'very surprised indeed' if heath and defence funding did not need topping up before the next election.
Despite Labour's splurge, he also cautioned that schools spending looked extremely 'tight' as special needs provision demand grows.
The IFS's post-mortem also ridiculed the Government's claim to have identified billions of pounds in 'efficiencies' during a 'zero-based' overhaul of costs.
Mr Johnson pointed out that all departments had been pencilled in for exactly the same percentages of back-office cuts, suggesting it was not a 'serious' exercise.
In his call for the OBR to carry out an assessment of Ms Reeves' plans, Mr Davies noted how the Chancellor had previously vowed never to sideline the watchdog.
In July last year, Ms Reeves announced new laws giving the OBR the power to make an independent assessment of any single major tax and spending announcement.
The Tory shadow minister said: 'This is the first time in the OBR's history that it has not provided a report alongside a Spending Review.
'This means Labour's Spending Review is founded on billions of pounds worth of speculative savings which have not been subject to independent OBR scrutiny.
'The supposed savings dwarf the Chancellor's headroom, so taxpayers are on the hook if they fail to materialise - as they always do with Labour.
'Given that Rachel Reeves promised to never make a significant fiscal announcement without an OBR report, this is yet another U-turn from a Government which has lost its grip.
'Labour has lost control of the economy, and families are tightening their belts as a result.
'Rachel Reeves' fantasy sums will be paid for in billions more borrowing and even more tax rises.
'The OBR must assess Labour's sums to prevent further speculation and uncertainty, and protect the pockets of hardworking British taxpayers.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The post-Brexit Gibraltar deal is going down badly in Spain
The post-Brexit Gibraltar deal is going down badly in Spain

Spectator

time22 minutes ago

  • Spectator

The post-Brexit Gibraltar deal is going down badly in Spain

Conservative and Reform politicians have denounced this week's post-Brexit Gibraltar deal as a betrayal. 'Gibraltar is British, and given Labour's record of surrendering our territory and paying for the privilege, we will be reviewing carefully all the details of any agreement that is reached,' Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said. Meanwhile, describing Labour as 'the worst negotiators in history', Nigel Farage called the agreement 'yet another surrender'. But Spain's right-wing parties have, if possible, been even more damning. José Manuel García-Margallo, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, described the agreement as 'total surrender', the 'absolute renunciation' of Spain's political and economic sovereignty over the Rock. 'All the British companies that want to settle in the EU post-Brexit will now go to Gibraltar,' he predicted, asking rhetorically who will now invest in Spain's neighbouring territory. He dismissed the argument that the pact helps the approximately 15,000 people living in Spain who work in Gibraltar, insisting that Spain, 'the fourth largest economy in the euro should be able to provide a solution for that number of people'.

Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open
Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open

Telegraph

time34 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open

All progressives solemnly honour LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. And Islamophobia Awareness Month. And Black History Month. Plus many other such events. This is because they're passionately committed to 'raising awareness' of social injustice. So why not the grooming gangs scandal? For some reason, this is one example of social injustice which has failed to grip progressives' attention. To rectify this, I suggest we introduce Grooming Gangs Awareness Month. Fly an official Grooming Gangs Scandal flag from all public buildings. Get civil servants to wear Grooming Gangs Scandal lanyards. Then perhaps these people might finally take an interest. Then again, we may be wasting our time. In all likelihood, progressives have never lacked 'awareness' of the grooming gangs. They just didn't want anyone else to be aware of them. Which brings me to the explosive allegations made on Thursday by Dominic Cummings. In an interview with GB News, he claimed that, when he was working at the Department for Education in the early 2010s, there were 'mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall'. Are Mr Cummings's allegations true? I don't know. But then, that's why we need the full national inquiry that Labour continues to deny us. A handful of mere 'local inquiries' won't do – not least because it wouldn't be within their scope to investigate Mr Cummings's claims about what went on in Whitehall. Yesterday, incidentally, seven members of yet another grooming gang were found guilty of raping two teenage girls in Rochdale. Labour may not like Mr Cummings. But this time I think it should listen to him. And, for that matter, to the increasingly furious public. Talking Bull Personally, I was somewhat taken aback when, on Tuesday, the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK told voters that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and it always has been'. I was even more surprised when, on Wednesday, he told Richard Madeley on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he was once strangled by an evil spirit masquerading as the ghost of his late grandmother. To my mind, though, Dr David Bull's most intriguing comment of the week was this. Asked whether he supports calls to ban the burqa in this country, he replied: 'I'm very anxious about the rise in people that think it is OK to hide their faces. We had a conversation yesterday about whether that was the burqa, crash helmets, scarves or whatever.' Hang on. Crash helmets? I for one have always admired Reform's bracingly no-nonsense attitude towards health-and-safety-gone-mad. But a ban on crash helmets, I feel, might be taking it a touch too far. In any case, I'm not convinced that there's a huge public clamour for such a ban. There are plenty of people who want to ban the burqa, and they have strong arguments for doing so. But I've never heard a voter say: 'I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing all these women walking around the streets in crash helmets. It's not as if it's their choice, either. Their husbands force them to do it. The crash helmet is a disgusting symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression. 'Also, crash helmets make normal human interaction impossible. When a motorcyclist zooms past me at 70mph, I expect to be able to see his face. 'Anyway, it's just not British. If motorcyclists want to wear crash helmets, they can go and do it in their own country.' Remarks like those, I would guess, aren't heard all that often in focus groups. So why Dr Bull raised the idea, entirely unprompted, in reply to a question about banning the burqa, I don't know. Still, I'm not complaining. Far from it. When I stepped down as this newspaper's parliamentary sketch writer in 2021, after 10 years, I felt that politics was in danger of becoming dull. The previous decade had teemed with the most glorious eccentrics, on Left and Right alike. Increasingly, however, they seemed to be fading from view, to be replaced by robotic regiments of Starmers and Sunaks. How wonderful it is to see a new generation coming through. Violence: a Left-wing guide I don't know whether you ever read Left-wing news outlets. But if you do, this week you'll probably have noticed something peculiar. In such outlets, the violence in Ballymena is always described as 'rioting' – yet the violence in LA is always described as 'protests'. You may well have wondered why this is. After all, both Ballymena and LA have seen cars set on fire, missiles thrown, and police officers injured. These are all very bad things. So why don't Left-wing news outlets refer to both as 'rioting'? The answer is simple. The violence in Ballymena is being perpetrated by people who are against mass immigration. The violence in LA, in contrast, is being perpetrated by people who are in favour not only of mass immigration, but of 'irregular' (i.e., illegal) immigration. And, just as importantly, they hate Donald Trump. Therefore, their actions must be made to sound understandable and legitimate. In other words: sometimes setting people's cars on fire is nasty and frightening. And sometimes it's noble and compassionate. Please update your records accordingly.

Holiday park caravan owners say industry needs regulation
Holiday park caravan owners say industry needs regulation

BBC News

time37 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Holiday park caravan owners say industry needs regulation

When the Reverend Vic Ready bought his first static caravan he was looking for a holiday home on the Norfolk coast that his whole family could Mr Ready, of Sheringham, Norfolk, said his experience of caravan ownership soured as a result of what he claimed was an "unregulated" industry that has left many people "suffering".The caravan park involved rejected any "allegation of wrongdoing" and said it had had a "proud record of extremely satisfied customers".Mr Ready is one of hundreds of caravan owners who have contacted the BBC in the wake of its investigation into the holiday park Ready bought his first caravan in 2013 at Beeston Regis Holiday Park for £26,000 before trading it in, and paying an extra £25,000, for a "nicer caravan in a better position" seven years Ready said he then saw his original caravan on sale for £29,000 - a figure that surprised him. Three years later, faced with what he claims were ever-rising ground rents of up to £6,000 per year, the family decided to sell said he was initially offered £8,250 by the park for his caravan.A week later the park agreed to up its offer to £15,000, a sum Mr Ready a couple of days later, Mr Ready said he was sent an advert showing the caravan listed for sale by the park at £47,950."Until you eventually want to sell and leave the site, you don't appreciate how much it's going to cost you and how much you've actually lost," Mr Ready said."This is a corrupt, unregulated business and it needs to stop," he said. "So many people are suffering." A spokesperson for Beeston Regis Holiday Park said Mr Ready had been a "valued customer" and claimed he was "happy with the deal" when he sold company said the caravan - a Pemberton Abingdon model - eventually sold for £35,000, which included a new 10-year site licence."Our business, like any other, is subject to constant cost increases, and our pitch fees have to rise to cover these costs," the spokesperson said, adding it strove to "minimise" such rises."In all businesses which rely on buying and selling, there has to be a profit margin, and – when we buy a caravan, we have to estimate the likely selling price and commit to a purchase price ahead of that," the company added Mr Ready had acquired his second caravan £8,000 below the asking price and said despite having "no obligation to buy the caravan from him" it had done so in "good faith" and had offered "than double the book value". In 2021, Ipswich-based Paul Burke bought a caravan at the Suffolk Sands site in Felixstowe for £75, caravan was his wife's "happy place", Mr Burke said. But when site fees reached about £7,000 a year, the couple decided to sell first, he tried to sell privately and spoke to an estate agent."He told me he'd been in the business for 20 years," Mr Burke said. "In that time he'd not sold a single caravan.""Part of the process is the purchasers need to be interviewed by the caravan park," said Mr Burke. "During that process they are persuaded to buy an alternative caravan directly from the park, probably with incentives such as a free year's site fees, or a better location or a slight upgrade." Mr Burke said he felt he had no choice but to sell the caravan directly back to the park for £25,000."That is a lot of depreciation in three years," he said. "There is pretty much zero protection. This really does need some industry-wide protection."Park Holidays, which owns Suffolk Sands, said it provided buyers with a licence agreement intended to help people make "informed purchasing" said the £75,000 purchase price included two years of pitch fees and said those fees were reviewed yearly and "broadly" mirrored the consumer price company said owners can sell privately as long as the prospective buyer passed its "vetting" procedures. It also said while it would seek to "assist" private sales, the park could offer "buying incentives such as favourable finance and free pitch fees" which private sellers could not.A government spokesperson said it was "aware of the difficulties some holiday home owners have experienced and we have strengthened consumer law".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store