How Donald Trump’s tariffs are wreaking chaos in the British metal industry
More Videos
Published
9 months agoon
By
admin
As the clock ticked down towards 12.01am Eastern Standard Time on 12 March, Liam Bates kept refreshing his browser.
Over the preceding weeks, Marcegaglia, the stainless steel company whose long products division he headed up, had rushed to melt and ship as much metal as it could from its furnaces in Sheffield across to the east coast of America, ahead of the imposition of tariffs.
Stainless steel
UK and US industrially interlocked
Of all the varieties of steel, stainless steel – an alloy of iron and chrome, along with other elements like nickel, molybdenum and carbon – is among the most important. Unlike most other iron alloys, which can rust when they encounter oxygen, stainless steel has a passive film that protects it from corrosion and can even self-heal. That makes it essential not just for use in sinks and cutlery (where most people will encounter it on a daily basis) but, arguably even more essential, in surgical instruments, heavy machinery and the pipes and ducts out of sight but essential to keeping civilisation working.
The trick of how to make stainless steel in large quantities was discovered here in Sheffield by Harry Brearley, and while the laboratories he worked for shut down long ago, the furnace at Marcegaglia, in an industrial park just outside the city, can trace a continuous thread back to him. This furnace used to be owned by British Steel, the nationalised corporation responsible for most of Britain’s steel manufacture until the days of privatisation.
Marcegaglia steel furnace in Sheffield
Ever since the invention of stainless steel, Britain has melted, cast and exported vast quantities of the stuff to America. For all that the US has a sizeable stainless steel sector, the two countries’ stainless sectors have nonetheless been industrially interlocked since the days of Henry Ford. You can see it in the way Marcegaglia functions.
It melts down scrap in its electric arc furnace in Sheffield – an enormous cauldron whose electrodes create a storm of lightning that consumes the same power as a sizeable northern city – and adds the relevant alloy ingredients to form a long, heavy metallic bar, a billet as it’s known. That billet is then shipped across the Atlantic to the company’s other site, where the billets are processed into bars that are then sold into the North American market. It is a single economic organism, split only by an ocean.
But today that ocean and that cross-country split have become an enormous problem. The last time Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel imports, back in 2018, so-called “intermediate” products like the billet made by Marcegaglia and then processed in America were excluded from the duties. This time around, the initial tariff rules had no such exemptions. The upshot was that any steel arriving in American ports after 12.01am Eastern Standard Time on 12 March – including Marcegaglia’s half-finished stainless billets – would incur hefty 25% tariffs.
A race against time
All of which was why Liam Bates had raced to get as much steel as possible into the US before that deadline. But as he refreshed his browser in the run-up to that deadline, he noticed two straggling shipments, still stuck on the Atlantic. The two ships, the Eva Marie and the Atlantic Star, were, between them, carrying about $12m of steel and they had been due to dock in the US on 10 or 11 March. If so, they would have avoided having to pay those 25% tariffs. But now storms and squalls were spreading across the North Atlantic. Would they stray into the ships’ path, disrupting shipping?
If the cargo arrived late, it would obliterate any margin the company hoped to make on its steel. And since those bars were destined for Marcegaglia’s own plant, the company would have to pay all those costs itself (tariffs are technically paid by the importer). Somehow, Bates had found himself helplessly witnessing an unexpected collision of politics and weather – with profound commercial consequences.
Of all the metal items Britain exports to the US, stainless steel is by far and away the biggest category. And the vast majority of that steel comes from the melt shop at Marcegaglia. But the quandary facing Liam Bates, and those companies he sells to in the US, helps illustrate the difficulties of economic policy-by-tariff.
Americans will see cost of most things go up
The prevailing theory behind the White House measures is that by raising the price of all imported metals, it will encourage domestic producers to build new production. It will help the US to reindustrialise – or so says Donald Trump. And in the long run, that might well prove right. Already, metals producers are raising money, promising to restart old, mothballed smelters. After all, if your main overseas competitors have seen their prices rise by 25%, that’s quite a competitive opportunity.
The problem is: building industrial production takes time. Marcegaglia itself is planning to replace its old furnace with a newer model, but the planning process has already taken years; the construction itself will be measured in months if not years too. In other words, even if everything goes to plan, America is very unlikely to replace imported steel with domestic production within the period of Donald Trump’s term as president.
In the meantime, American consumers will see the cost of pretty much everything going up. After all, steel – ignored or dismissed as it sometimes is – is the single most important metallic substance in the world. If something isn’t made of steel it’s made in machines made of steel. And lifting some of those steel prices by 25% will travel like an economic tidal wave through US supply chains.
UK flooded with cheap imported steel
The tidal wave is already washing back elsewhere too. With so much steel now unable to get into the US at a decent price, exporters are redeploying shipments elsewhere. All of a sudden countries like the UK are seeing a flood of cheap imported steel – good news in the short run for consumers, but disastrous for what is left of Britain’s domestic industry.
As the deadline approached and Bates nervously refreshed his live vessel tracking map, disaster struck. The squalls across the Atlantic mounted and the Eva Marie and Atlantic Star slowed nearly to a halt. By the time midnight struck and the tariffs came into place, the two vessels were still many miles off the US coast. They had lost the race. The upshot was Marcegaglia would have to pay around $4m in tariffs – about £3m.
That a company was struck with a somewhat arbitrary fee simply to pass goods from one of its factories to another might be among the most egregious examples of the collateral economic damage wrought by trade barriers, but it is likely to be the first of many perverse episodes, with consequences all around the world. For steel is not the only metal to be hit with tariffs. If anything, the drama is even greater for another metal: aluminium.
Aluminium
The world’s biggest factory – hidden in Scotland
Here’s a riddle for you: what is the biggest factory in the world?
You’re probably thinking of vast, cavernous car production lines in Michigan, of shipyards in Korea or steelworks in China. But there’s a strong case to be made that the world’s biggest factory is instead to be found deep in the Highlands of Scotland.
Not that it looks anything like a factory. To the untrained eye, it looks, instead, like heather, forests and bubbling burns of water trickling into lochs. But the 114,000 acres of estates in Lochaber and Badenoch – the third biggest rural estate in Scotland – play a crucial role in helping produce one of the most important substances in the world.
Part of the side of a mountain running into a hydroelectric power station for Fort William aluminium plant
The Fort William aluminium plant sits under the shadow of Ben Nevis, the tallest peak in the United Kingdom. Once upon a time, it was just one of a constellation of smelters dotted around Scotland, that made this country, all told, one of the world’s biggest aluminium producers.
For all that it is very prevalent in the earth’s crust, aluminium used to be one of the world’s most precious metals – so much so that no one had even laid eyes on it until the 19th century. When he wanted to impress his guests, Napoleon III served them dinner not on gold plates but on aluminium.
An extraordinary metal
Why? Because aluminium is very difficult – even harder than iron – to convert from the ores you find in the ground into its metallic form. Burn iron ore hot enough, in the right kind of furnace alongside the right kind of charcoal or coal, and you eventually smelt out a form of metal. But aluminium needs a different kind of force to be persuaded to loosen its bonds and form into a pure metal – the force of electricity.
So only when the Hall-Heroult process, which allows you to smelt aluminium via electrolysis of alumina (a processed version of the bauxite you get out of the ground), was invented in 1886 did aluminium become a widely available metal. Few people talk these days about the Hall-Heroult process, but it was a breakthrough of earth-shattering proportions. Aluminium is an extraordinary metal – strong but light. And those qualities make it essential in aeronautic deployments. No aluminium, no planes.
Fort William aluminium plant
It is no coincidence that the Wright Brothers’ plane at Kitty Hawk had an engine made out of aluminium. Steel would have weighed the glider down too much. And it’s no coincidence that powered flight happened shortly after aluminium became widely available. Without the Hall-Heroult process, the world would have been a very different place.
While the process wasn’t dreamt up in the UK, British industrialists rapidly embraced it, building smelters all over the country. But the catch with aluminium is that you can’t smelt it without a big and (this is important) very reliable supply of power. Turn off the power to those enormous carbon electrodes inside an aluminium smelter and in a matter of hours the metal at its base will solidify, effectively destroying it. More than nearly any other industrial process, this is not something you can just switch off willy-nilly, which helps explain why smelters aren’t typically dependent on variable power sources like wind and solar.
It also explains why, throughout history, these plants have been seen as some of the most important industrial locations throughout the world. The Fort William plant provided most of the aluminium used in Spitfires during WWII. It was repeatedly targeted by the Luftwaffe – indeed there is an old German bomb kept as a memento just near the turbines that power the cells here.
Fort William aluminium dam
Some of the world’s earliest smelters were powered by hydroelectricity – most notably the ones which drew their power from the Niagara Falls plants near Buffalo, New York. But the Fort William plant was subtly but importantly different. Those other hydro plants would typically piggyback off a big dam generating power from a big river – such as the ones you find in the US or Canada, or the fjords of Norway. But none of Britain’s rivers is quite powerful enough or with a reliable enough flow to provide that kind of uninterrupted power.
Radical design
So the designers of the Fort William plant did something radical. They bought up vast stretches of the countryside around Ben Nevis (including Ben Nevis itself). And within that estate, they built a series of dams to collect the rainwater trickling down from local watersheds. Those dams weren’t there to generate power for homes – they were there to collect the water and channel it through a series of tunnels, running 16 miles through the hills and through the flanks of Ben Nevis. Then the water, collected from those 114,000 acres, feeds five pipes running down the side of the mountain which run into an enormous hydroelectric power station.
There are many aluminium smelters around the world and many hydroelectric dams. But none are quite like this one. The point being that without the estate, without all those trickling streams and heather-covered watersheds, the plant here simply wouldn’t function. It is all part of a single ecosystem.
These days the plant is connected to the national grid, meaning it also serves another function: balancing. This comes back to one of the dysfunctions of the grid: it doesn’t have enough high-voltage lines connecting Scotland, with all its wind farms, and the south. So on windy days, when there’s too much power in Scotland, instead of curtailing those farms and wasting the electricity, the plant can suck in extra power from the Scottish section of the grid and leave its water where it is as a sort of battery.
Competition from China
The problem the plant has faced is that these days aluminium is a commodity metal. And it’s becoming harder and harder to compete with the cheap metal being exported from China. China dominates the global supply of the metal, in large part because its suppliers benefit from cheap energy and generous government subsidies – neither of which are available in the UK. As the years have gone by, the workers at Fort William have watched as, one by one, every other plant in Britain was shuttered. Rumours still abound that they may eventually be next.
Fort William aluminium plant
And, much as for Marcegaglia down in Sheffield, the tariffs on aluminium will only make life tougher for Alvance, the unit of Liberty House – part of Indian-born Sanjeev Gupta’s business empire – that now owns the Fort William plant. Arguably, the impact could be even greater. The last time Donald Trump imposed tariffs on aluminium back in 2018, the rate he chose was 10%. The difference with the steel tariff level (which was 25% then and now) reflected the fact that the US imported far more aluminium than steel. Imposing severe extra costs on it would, the White House worried, cripple the American aerospace and car businesses dependent on the metal. No such concern this time around. The tariff is 25%.
Quite how that will affect the plant here in the Scottish Highlands remains to be seen. After all, Alvance itself doesn’t sell anything directly to the US, sending its large slabs of metal to other firms in England which process and roll them into sheets and specialised components, some of which end up in the US. Perhaps, as the defence industry ratchets up in the coming years, more of that aluminium will be used by domestic industry. But what’s to stop UK manufacturers doing what they’ve been doing for years, and simply opting for the cheapest metal available, which usually comes from China? Either way, life for the last remaining aluminium plant in the UK is about to get harder, not easier.
But while the main upshot of the trade war building across the Atlantic and the Pacific will be to make both sides worse off – that, at least, is the prediction from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – that doesn’t mean there won’t be some beneficiaries in this country. For a small but important example, let’s travel from the far north of Britain to its far south.
Tungsten
UK has one of its biggest resources in world
Drive across Dartmoor, the windswept national park in the heart of Devon, and every so often you come across the remains of an old tin mine. At Fox Tor you find the remains of alluvial mining; there is Golden Dagger Mine, which ran all the way to the 1930s, as well as the hollow stone chimney of the pumping house at Wheal Betsy.
Hemerdon tungsten mine
For much of the ancient era, tin – which when mixed with copper creates the alloy bronze – was what we would today call a “critical mineral”, essential for the production of the strong tools and weapons of the Bronze Age. And for centuries, the majority of Europe’s tin came from Cornwall and Devon.
That, of course, is long in the past. But just on the outskirts of Dartmoor is a site that could – just could – make this an important site for critical minerals once again. For here, beneath the soil of southwest England, is one of the world’s biggest resources of tungsten.
Tungsten among few substances on everyone’s list
Tungsten is among the 21st century’s most important critical minerals. Nearly every country has a list of these materials – the kinds of things they need to make their most important products – and the members of those lists vary by region. But tungsten is one of the few substances that feature in everyone’s list. The hardest metal in existence, with the highest melting point, it is essential in the production of hard steel tools, weapons, armour and as the electrodes inside semiconductor circuits. If you are making electronics you need tungsten. If you are going to war you need tungsten.
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the main heyday for this mine, which contains plenty of tin as well as tungsten, was in the First and Second World Wars. Much as the Fort William plant provided aluminium for British Spitfires, Hemerdon provided the tungsten and tin needed for the weapons Britain used to fight the Nazis. But ever since then, its history has been chequered, to say the least.
It went into hibernation for decades, a sleep broken for only a single day during the Korean War. Then, a few years ago, investors tried to get it up and running again. They built a vast processing plant and began to mine the metal. But by 2019 the operation had run out of money and imploded. All that was left was an even bigger hole in the ground, a large tailings dam for waste and a hangar filled with processing equipment.
In part, the reason Hemerdon went belly-up that time was because the company made the mistake miners often make: they misjudged the type of ore they were expecting to grind through, meaning their processing plant was far less efficient than it could have been. But an even bigger challenge came back to something that will sound familiar: they were trying to compete with China.
China dominates world tungsten production – even more so than for aluminium and steel. It essentially controls the global market and, just as importantly, the tungsten price. Anyone trying to sell tungsten is contending with Chinese prices which can yo-yo for reasons no one can entirely explain. That makes it fiendishly difficult to compete.
But in recent years, new investors have begun to put fresh funds into the Hemerdon mine, hoping history will not repeat itself and this time around it can exploit that enormous ore resource. And there are at least a couple of reasons to believe (famous last words in finance) that “this time might be different”.
The first is that, in retaliation against Donald Trump’s latest metal tariffs, China has begun to put export limits on tungsten. How this will work in practice remains unclear (remember that like most markets China controls, the way tungsten sales function is almost completely opaque) but if it encourages domestic buyers to look for local suppliers, that could help the mine to find buyers. After all, in theory, it could produce a few thousand tonnes of the metal each year, which would instantly leapfrog Britain to become the world’s second or third-biggest producer (albeit a long way down from China).
Supplies matter more than ever
The second big shift comes back to defence. With the world remilitarising, all of a sudden tungsten supplies matter more than ever. And since defence suppliers pay outsized attention to where metals come from, again, that might allow a British tungsten mine to succeed where predecessors have failed.
Add to this the fact that the mine itself is nearly ready to be exploited and that the new owners reckon they’ve ironed out the problems that beset their predecessors, and it’s a compelling case. They think they could be getting metal out of the ground as soon as next year.
But those overarching challenges haven’t gone away. And nor has another, bigger problem facing the entire industry, not just in the UK but – perhaps even more so – in the US. How can you plan in a world where you just don’t know what’s coming out of the White House in the next few days, let alone the next few years?
Consider: imagine you’re a stainless steel producer or an aluminium smelter in the US. Those 25% tariffs mean all of a sudden in theory you have a competitive advantage over anyone shipping metal into the country. All of a sudden, there’s a strong case to build a smelter or a stainless steel melting shop. So you get to work looking for backers.
Uncertainty creates challenges
But building a plant like this takes time. You need to find a site, connect it to high-voltage power, and build the facilities and all the necessary infrastructure. Best case scenario: it might take a couple of years, but even that is ambitious. And as you contemplate this and map out your plans, those backers will ask you the same nagging question you’ve been asking yourself: sure, the economics of an aluminium smelter might add up today; but what if the president changes his mind tomorrow, or next year? What if those tariffs are pulled by the next president? Then, all of a sudden, the sums very much don’t add up.
All of which is to say, uncertainty around tariffs is a challenge not just for those companies hoping to ship products to America, but for American firms hoping to benefit from this trade war. And bear in mind metals are only the first chapter of what could be a long saga, which ends up engulfing all corners of American trade. These are unpredictable times, however you look at it.
You may like
Business
Bank of England warns of heightened risks but trims banks’ reserve requirements
Published
10 hours agoon
December 2, 2025By
admin

The Bank of England has warned of heightened risks to the UK’s financial system but cut the amount of money that banks need to hold in reserve in case of shock.
The twice-yearly financial stability report highlights a series of pressures, from higher government borrowing costs to risks around lending to major tech firms and record stock market valuations – particularly in areas exposed to artificial intelligence (AI).
“Risks to financial stability have increased during 2025,” the Bank‘s financial policy committee (FPC) said.
“Global risks remain elevated and material uncertainty in the global macroeconomic outlook persists. Key sources of risk include geopolitical tensions, fragmentation of trade and financial markets, and pressures on sovereign debt markets.
Money latest: My supermarket delivery row
“Elevated geopolitical tensions increase the likelihood of cyberattacks and other operational disruptions.
“In the FPC’s judgement, many risky asset valuations remain materially stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on AI.
More from Money
“Equity valuations in the US are close to the most stretched they have been since the dot-com bubble, and in the UK since the global financial crisis (GFC). This heightens the risk of a sharp correction.”
Its concern extended to the growing trend of tech firms using debt finance to fund investment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

1:11
Could the AI bubble burst?
The Bank, which joined the International Monetary Fund in warning over an AI-led bubble in October, delivered its verdict at a time when UK regulators are under pressure from the government to place a greater focus on supporting economic growth.
It is understood, for example, the UK’s ringfencing regime – that sees retail banking separated from more risky investment banking operations within major lenders – is the subject of a review between the Bank and government.
Efforts by the chancellor to grow the economy will be potentially helped by the Bank’s decision today to lower capital requirements – the reserves banks must hold to help them withstand shocks in the financial system such as the global crisis of 2008/9.
The sector’s main capital requirement was cut by the Bank from 14% to 13%.
The Bank said that almost four million households face higher mortgage costs as fixed-term deals end. Pic: iStock
Such a move was urged, not only by the government, but by businesses to bolster UK lending and competitiveness.
The relaxation of the buffer does not take effect until 2027.
It was announced alongside confirmation that the country’s biggest lenders – Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Santander UK, Standard Chartered and Nationwide building society – had passed the Bank’s latest stress tests.
The shocks each was exposed to included a 5% contraction in UK economic output, a 28% drop in house prices and Bank rate at 8%.
Despite the growing risks identified by the FPC, the Bank said that each was strong enough to support households and businesses even in the event of such scenarios, given the healthy state of their reserves.
It is widely expected that the gradual reduction in Bank rate will continue next year, assuming the outlook for inflation remains on a downwards trajectory, helping wider borrowing costs – a source of record bank profitability – decline.
The Bank said that three million households were expected to see their mortgage payments decrease in the next three years but that 3.9 million were forecast to refinance onto higher rates.
As such, it projected a £64 (8%) rise in costs for a typical owner-occupier mortgage customer rolling off a fixed rate deal in the next two years.
Banking stocks, which have enjoyed strong gains this year, were up when the FTSE 100 opened for business despite wider market caution globally which is aligned with the risks spoken of in the financial stability report.
Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “UK banks are offering a dose of optimism this morning in what’s turning out to be a good couple of weeks for the major lenders.
“The UK’s seven biggest banks sailed through the latest stress test, reaffirming their resilience and earning a regulatory nod to ease capital buffers.
“Most banks already hold capital well above the minimum by choice, so any shift in strategy may take time – but in theory, it frees up extra capital for lending or capital returns.
“However they use the new freedom, this is another clear signal that the UK banking sector is in robust health. This was largely expected, but the confirmation should still be taken well, especially after dodging tax hikes in last week’s budget.”
Business
Is Starmer continuing to mislead public over the budget?
Published
1 day agoon
December 1, 2025By
admin

Did the chancellor mislead the public, and her own cabinet, before the budget?
It’s a good question, and we’ll come to it in a second, but let’s begin with an even bigger one: is the prime minister continuing to mislead the public over the budget?
The details are a bit complex but ultimately this all comes back to a rather simple question: why did the government raise taxes in last week’s budget? To judge from the prime minister’s responses at a news conference just this morning, you might have judged that the answer is: “because we had to”.
“There was an OBR productivity review,” he explained to one journalist. “The result of that was there was £16bn less than we might otherwise have had. That’s a difficult starting point for any budget.”
Politics latest: OBR boss resigns over budget leak
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

3:29
Beth Rigby asks Keir Starmer if he misled the public
Time and time again throughout the news conference, he repeated the same point: the Office for Budget Responsibility had revised its forecasts for the UK economy and the upshot of that was that the government had a £16bn hole in its accounts. Keep that figure in your head for a bit, because it’s not without significance.
But for the time being, let’s take a step back and recall that budgets are mostly about the difference between two numbers: revenues and expenditure; tax and spending. This government has set itself a fiscal rule – that it needs, within a few years, to ensure that, after netting out investment, the tax bar needs to be higher than the spending bar.
At the time of the last budget, taxes were indeed higher than current spending, once the economic cycle is taken account of or, to put it in economists’ language, there was a surplus in the cyclically adjusted current budget. The chancellor had met her fiscal rule, by £9.9bn.
Pic: Reuters
This, it’s worth saying, is not a very large margin by which to meet your fiscal rule. A typical budget can see revisions and changes that would swamp that in one fell swoop. And part of the explanation for why there has been so much speculation about tax rises over the summer is that the chancellor left herself so little “headroom” against the rule. And since everyone could see debt interest costs were going up, it seemed quite plausible that the government would have to raise taxes.
Then, over the summer, the OBR, whose job it is to make the official government forecasts, and to mark its fiscal homework, told the government it was also doing something else: reviewing the state of Britain’s productivity. This set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street – and understandably. The weaker productivity growth is, the less income we’re all earning, and the less income we’re earning, the less tax revenues there are going into the exchequer.
The early signs were that the productivity review would knock tens of billions of pounds off the chancellor’s “headroom” – that it could, in one fell swoop, wipe off that £9.9bn and send it into the red.
Read more:
Main budget announcements – at a glance
Enter your salary to see how the budget affects you
That is why stories began to brew through the summer that the chancellor was considering raising taxes. The Treasury was preparing itself for some grisly news. But here’s the interesting thing: when the bad news (that productivity review) did eventually arrive, it was far less grisly than expected.
True: the one-off productivity “hit” to the public finances was £16bn. But – and this is crucial – that was offset by a lot of other, much better news (at least from the exchequer’s perspective). Higher wage inflation meant higher expected tax revenues, not to mention a host of other impacts. All told, when everything was totted up, the hit to the public finances wasn’t £16bn but somewhere between £5bn and £6bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

8:46
Budget winners and losers
Why is that number significant? Because it’s short of the chancellor’s existing £9.9bn headroom. Or, to put it another way, the OBR’s forecasting exercise was not enough to force her to raise taxes.
The decision to raise taxes, in other words, came down to something else. It came down to the fact that the government U-turned on a number of its welfare reforms over the summer. It came down to the fact that they wanted to axe the two-child benefits cap. And, on top of this, it came down to the fact that they wanted to raise their “headroom” against the fiscal rules from £9.9bn to over £20bn.
These are all perfectly logical reasons to raise tax – though some will disagree on their wisdom. But here’s the key thing: they are the chancellor and prime minister’s decisions. They are not knee-jerk responses to someone else’s bad news.
Yet when the prime minister explained his budget decisions, he focused mostly on that OBR report. In fact, worse, he selectively quoted the £16bn number from the productivity review without acknowledging that it was only one part of the story. That seems pretty misleading to me.
Business
Starmer denies misleading public and cabinet ahead of budget
Published
1 day agoon
December 1, 2025By
admin

Sir Keir Starmer has denied he and the chancellor misled the public and the cabinet over the state of the UK’s public finances ahead of the budget.
The prime minister told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby “there was no misleading”, following claims he and Rachel Reeves deliberately said public finances were in a dire state, when they were not.
Politics latest: Reeves says Cabinet briefed on morning of budget
He said a productivity review by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which provides fiscal forecasts to the government, meant there would be £16bn less available so the government had to take that into account.
“To suggest that a government that is saying that’s not a good starting point is misleading is wrong, in my view,” Sir Keir said.
Cabinet ministers have said they felt misled by the chancellor and prime minister, who warned public finances were in a worse state than they thought, so they would have to raise taxes, including income tax, which they had promised not to in the manifesto.
At last Wednesday’s budget, Ms Reeves unveiled a record-breaking £26bn in tax rises.
More from Politics
The OBR published the forecasts it provided to the chancellor in the two months before the budget, which showed there was a £4.2bn headroom on 31 October – ahead of that warning about possible income tax rises on 4 November.
The OBR’s timings and outcomes of the fiscal forecasts reported to the Treasury
Sir Keir added: “There was a point at which we did think we would have to breach the manifesto in order to achieve what we wanted to achieve.
“Late on, it became possible to do it without the manifesto breach. And that’s why we came to the decisions that we did.”
Sir Keir said a productivity review had not taken place in 15 years and questioned why it was not done at the end of the last government, as he blamed the Conservatives for the OBR downgrading medium-term productivity growth by 0.3 percentage points to 1% at the end of the five-year forecast.
Read more:
Senior cabinet minister defends Reeves
‘Of course I didn’t lie about budget forecasts, says chancellor
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

0:58
Reeves: I didn’t lie about ‘tax hikes’
The prime minister added: “I wanted to more than double the headroom, and to bear down on the cost of living, because I know that for families and communities across the country, that is the single most important issue, I wanted to achieve all those things.
“Starting that exercise with £16 billion less than we might otherwise have had. Of course, there are other figures in this, but there’s no pretending that that’s a good starting point for a government.”
On Sunday, when asked by Sky’s Trevor Phillips if she lied, Ms Reeves said: “Of course I didn’t.”
She also said the OBR’s downgrade of productivity meant the forecast for tax receipts was £16bn lower than expected, so she needed to increase taxes to create fiscal headroom.
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
