The chancellor will need to raise taxes by £25bn if she wants to keep spending rising with national income, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
In its annual ‘Green Budget’ analysis, the IFS warned that the government would have to dramatically increase the £9bn of tax rises outlined in its manifesto to meet the pressures on public services.
The chancellor is likely to stick to her fiscal rule, which requires day-to-day spending to be met by tax revenues. This means she cannot increase borrowing to fill the gap.
Rachel Reeves will present her first budget in the Commons on 30 October. Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said this budget could be “the most consequential since at least 2010”.
The new Labour government has already pledged in its manifesto to increase government budgets by £5bn and is spending £9bn to settle public sector pay disputes.
If Labour makes no further changes to the spending envelope, which was outlined by the previous government in 2021, it would register a surplus of £17bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Will Rachel Reeves U-turn on her budget promise?
However, those spending plans are considered wildly unrealistic and would involve real term cuts to unprotected budgets.
There is very little appetite for further cuts to public spending, so the chancellor could protect those budgets from inflation. That would leave her with a surplus of £1bn.
However, if she opted to protect spending as a share of national income – which better reflects population increase – she would record a deficit of £16bn.
Advertisement
That combined with the £9bn of tax rises already promised would see taxes increase by £25bn, further adding to a tax burden which is at a generational high.
Over-zealous borrowing plans could risk a UK buyer’s strike
The UK risks a buyer’s strike in the bond markets if the chancellor is over-zealous with her borrowing plans.
Rachel Reeves is expected to outline plans to increase borrowing for investment purposes in her Budget on 30 October.
Although she has a debt rule that requires debt to be falling as a share of GDP in five years time, she could change her definition of debt to give herself extra headroom.
In doing so, she could find up to £50bn in additional headroom. However, the IFS warned the government against borrowing this much money.
Economists said the chancellor should be slow and steady with any increases in borrowing, with full oversight of institutions such as the National Audit Office.
They note that the UK has greater liquidity risk than its neighbours, including the EU so it was more exposed to changes in investor sentiment.
It would be bigger than the net tax rises recorded in July 1997 and October 2010, which were both around £13-£14bn.
The government has also penned itself in by promising not to raise income tax and corporation tax or to increase National Insurance or VAT.
The IFS said that, even if Labour’s planned £9bn tax rise is implemented, trying to balance the current budget while avoiding cuts to public service spending would put the budget “on a knife edge” and highly sensitive to OBR judgments.
It said the chancellor has inherited an “unenviable” public finance situation as taxes are already at a historic high and debt is rising, while public services such as prisons, police and local councils are under strain.
Mr Johnson, said: “The first budget of this new administration could be the most consequential since at least 2010… Taxes are at an all-time high, and she is tightly constrained by her pledges not to raise the main rates of income tax or corporation tax, or to increase National Insurance or VAT at all.
“The temptation then is to borrow more, perhaps changing the definition of debt targeted by the fiscal rules. But, given her pledge to balance the current budget, that would not free up additional resource for day-to-day spending.”
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
More from Money
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Image: Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:18
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
Image: File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
Young people could lose their right to universal credit if they refuse to engage with help from a new scheme without good reason, the government has warned.
Almost one million will gain from plans to get them off benefits and into the workforce, according to officials.
It comes as the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) has risen by more than a quarter since the COVID pandemic, with around 940,000 16 to 24-year-olds considered as NEET as of September this year, said the Office for National Statistics.
That is an increase of 195,000 in the last two years, mainly driven by increasing sickness and disability rates.
The £820m package includes funding to create 350,000 new workplace opportunities, including training and work experience, which will be offered in industries including construction, hospitality and healthcare.
Around 900,000 people on universal credit will be given a “dedicated work support session”.
That will be followed by four weeks of “intensive support” to help them find work in one of up to six “pathways”, which are: work, work experience, apprenticeships, wider training, learning, or a workplace training programme with a guaranteed interview at the end.
However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has warned that young people could lose some of their benefits if they refuse to engage with the scheme without good reason.
The government says these pathways will be delivered in coordination with employers, while government-backed guaranteed jobs will be provided for up to 55,000 young people from spring 2026, but only in those areas with the highest need.
However, shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately, from the Conservatives, said the scheme is “an admission the government has no plan for growth, no plan to create real jobs, and no way of measuring whether any of this money delivers results”.
She told Sky News the proposals are a “classic Labour approach” for tackling youth unemployment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:57
Youth jobs plan ‘the wrong answer’
“What we’ve seen today announced by the government is funding the best part of £1bn on work placements, and government-created jobs for young people. That sounds all very well,” she told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
“But the fact is, and that’s the absurdity of it is, just two weeks ago, we had a budget from the chancellor, which is expected to destroy 200,000 jobs.
“So the problem we have here is a government whose policies are destroying jobs, destroying opportunities for young people, now saying they’re going to spend taxpayers’ money on creating work placements. It’s just simply the wrong answer.”
Ms Whately also said the government needs to tackle people who are unmotivated to work at all, and agreed with Mr McFadden on taking away the right to universal credit if they refuse opportunities to work.
But she said the “main reason” young people are out of work is because “they’re moving on to sickness benefits”.
Ms Whately also pointed to the government’s diminished attempt to slash benefits earlier in the year, where planned welfare cuts were significantly scaled down after opposition from their own MPs.
The funding will also expand youth hubs to help provide advice on writing CVs or seeking training, and also provide housing and mental health support.
Some £34m from the funding will be used to launch a new “Risk of NEET indicator tool”, aimed at identifying those young people who need support before they leave education and become unemployed.
Monitoring of attendance in further education will be bolstered, and automatic enrolment in further education will also be piloted for young people without a place.