What we got from Rachel Reeves today was, in economic terms, a major departure from economic policy as we’ve known it in this country for the past decade-and-a-half.
We got the single biggest increase in taxes in any fiscal event since 1993. The tax burden itself is now heading up to the highest level in history. We got a significant departure from the policies and promises laid out in the Labour manifesto.
Only a few months ago, Labour pledged not to make dramatic changes to Britain’s economic policy – no significant tax rises, no dramatic changes to public spending. But today the chancellor delivered significant changes.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The old fiscal rules are out and now this government plans to borrow many billions of pounds more. It plans to increase investment considerably.
It plans to raise taxes on those with investments, on those with assets who could previously pass them on to their children (including business owners and farmers). In the meantime, it plans to spend considerably more on the health service and on public investment than previously slated.
It’s worth saying: while the government inherited the public finances in a worse condition than they looked before the election, even the Treasury’s “black hole” of £22bn cannot explain the dramatic change in economic policy here.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:23
Reeves refuses to rule out future tax hikes
It does not explain the dramatic increase in borrowing, spending and taxes – these are policy decisions by the current government. And, many would say, quite right too. Surveys suggest the British public support higher taxes, especially if they are used to improve the National Health Service.
Many think the UK should be spending more on its public services, even if that means we all have to contribute more (though they are generally less enthusiastic if asked whether they would be happy to pay higher taxes themselves). And there is little dispute that this country’s investment levels have been too low for too long and could afford to be higher.
However, that wasn’t the pitch Reeves and Keir Starmer made at the election. They promised, in their manifesto, only slight economic changes and only small increases in taxes. They promised to spend much of their time in office cleaning up the mess from the last government. Reeves promised to be the iron chancellor of fiscal discipline.
But this budget is considerably less disciplined with the public finances than expected. But what will worry the chancellor is that despite this extra largesse with both investment and current spending, the UK economy is not going gangbusters as a result.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The Office for Budget Responsibility actually cut its forecasts for long term growth. That promise made by Starmer to achieve the highest economic growth in the G7 looks highly unlikely – even after the implementation of all these policies.
And in the hours after the speech, markets reacted in a way that will cause nerves in the Treasury. It’s nothing like the lurches in government debt yields we saw after Liz Truss’s mini budget in 2022. But the pound fell and the interest rates investors charge the UK government rose. That’s not something any chancellor would like to see after their first budget.
The next few days promise to be very interesting both in politics and in markets.
They demolished most of the “blue wall” at the general election, and now the Lib Dems are eyeing up Labour voters.
Strategists see an opportunity in younger people who, over the course of this parliament, may be priced out of cities and into commuter belt areas as they seek to get on the housing ladder or start a family.
Insiders say the plan is to focus more on the cost of living to shift the party’s appeal beyond the traditional southern heartlands.
“There’s a key opportunity to target people who were 30 at the last election who over the next five years might find themselves moving out of London, to areas like Surrey, Guildford,” a senior party source told Sky News.
“We also need to be better at making a case for a liberal voice in urban areas. We have not told enough of a story on the cost of living.
“We need a liberal voice back in the cities – areas like Liverpool, where there is strong support at a council level that we can use as a base to build on.”
Liverpool is a traditional Labour heartland but in January lost its first local authority by-election there in 27 years to the Lib Dems.
More on Liberal Democrats
Related Topics:
Carl Cashman, the leader of the Lib Dems on the city council, says it’s a result that shows the potential to make gains in areas where the party came third and fourth at the general election.
Image: Carl Cashman is the leader of the Liverpool Liberal Democrats
“One of the cases I have been making to the national party is that Liverpool should be a number one target.
“We are almost at the end of the road when it comes to the Conservatives, so we need to start looking at areas like Liverpool,” he said, adding that Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle could also be ripe for the taking.
However, the party faces a challenge of making a case for liberalism against the rising tide of populism.
Sir Ed Davey, the party leader, is trying to position himself as the only politician who is not afraid of holding Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to account.
He has recently unveiled a plan to cut energy bills by changing how renewable projects are paid for and says he will boycott Donald Trump’s state dinner. It is these green, internationalist policies that insiders hope can hoover up support of remaining Tory moderates unhappy with the direction of Kemi Badenoch’s party and progressive voters who think Labour is more of the same.
However, strategists admit it is difficult to cut through on these issues in a changing media landscape, “when you’re either viral or you’re not”.
‘Silly stunts’ here to stay
Farage has no such problem, which Davey has blamed on a national media weighted too heavily in favour of the Reform UK leader, given the size of his party (he has just four MPs compared to the Liberal Democrats’ 72).
But the two parties have very different media strategies. This week, on the same day Farage held a Trump-style press conference to announce his immigration deportation plans, with a Q&A for journalists after, the Liberal Democrat leader went to pick strawberries in Somerset to highlight the plight of farmers facing increased inheritance tax.
Image: Sir Ed Davey takes part in strawberry picking with Tessa Munt, the MP for Wells & Mendip Hills. Pic: PA
Some Lib Dems have questioned whether the “silly stunts” that proved successful during the general election are past their shelf life, but strategists say there will be no fundamental change to that, insisting Sir Ed is the “genuine nice guy” he comes across as and that offers something different.
The Lib Dems ultimately see their strength as lying not in the “airwaves war” but the “ground war” – building support on the doorstep at a local level and then turning that into seats.
“Our strategy is seats, not votes. Theirs is votes, not seats,” said the party source, suggesting Farage’s divisiveness might backfire under a first past the post system where people typically vote against the party they disklike the most.
“The next election won’t be about who is saying the meanest things.”
‘Don’t underestimate us’
There is broad support within the party behind that strategy. Cllr Cashman said a greater use of social media could help attract a younger demographic, along with putting forward “really fundamental, powerful liberal ideas” on issues such as housing.
But he said Davey is “never going to do the controversial things Farage does”.
“The way we reach people, the traditional campaigning, is what makes us strong. Just because we are not always on the airwaves, do not underestimate us.”
Image: Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Pic: PA
For Liberal Democrat peer and pollster Dr Mark Pack, there are reasons to be confident. On Friday, the party won a local council by-election in Camden, north London – “Sir Keir Starmer’s backyard” – with a swing from Labour to the Lib Dems of 19%.
It is these statistics that the party is far more focused on than national vote share – with Labour’s misfortunes opening an opportunity to strategically target areas where voters are more likely to switch.
“One of the lessons we have learned from the past is that riding high in opinion polls doesn’t translate into seats.
“We are really focused on winning seats with the system in front of us. There is a route to success by concentrating on and expanding on what we have been good at.”
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner should face an ethics inquiry over her tax affairs, the Conservatives have said.
It comes after The Daily Telegraph claimed Ms Rayner, who is also housing secretary, avoided £40,000 in stamp duty on a second home in East Sussex by removing her name from the deeds of another property in Greater Manchester.
Stamp duty is a tax paid in England and Northern Ireland when someone buys a property over a certain price.
The newspaper also claimed Ms Rayner previously suggested the Greater Manchester home remained her primary residence, saving around £2,000 in council tax on her grace and favour home in central London.
Conservative chairman Kevin Hollinrake has written to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, requesting he investigate whether Ms Rayner broke ministerial rules.
In a letter to Sir Laurie, Mr Hollinrake described Ms Rayner’s arrangements as “hypocritical tax avoidance, by a minister who supports higher taxes on family homes, high-value homes and second homes”.
As housing secretary, Ms Rayner is responsible for overseeing council tax and housing policy.
Mr Hollinrake said the statements she had given on her residency were “contradictory”, but conceded she had broken no laws.
A spokesperson for Ms Rayner has said she “paid the correct duty” on the purchase “entirely properly” – and “any suggestion otherwise is entirely without basis”.
A Cabinet Office spokesman added that Ms Rayner “has followed advice on the allocation of her official residence at all times”.