Reeves can no longer overcome early work choices

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Care Starmer is looking for a new economic advisor. The job description seems to be a good person, but it is not so good that it will cause destabilization processes with the advisor. The big hunger does not need to apply.

The prime minister’s separate approach to economic policy, and leaving all thinking to the treasury, is a firm weakness in No. 10 and this government. It will take more than just a new Wink in Downing Street to solve the challenges of the Labor Party, but a few of them can doubt the need. Starmer and his advisor, Rachel Reeves, face a financial account. Simply put, the Labor Party can no longer outperform the consequences of its early economic and political options.

There are good things to review spending next week. Supporters will cheer 113 billion pounds from the capital investment. The first tranche has been revealed on Wednesday With a set of projects of railways, buses and tram. (You are waiting for years for a transportation system outside London, then dozens come simultaneously.) Representatives welcomed the axis to the lifting agend. But boosting capital cannot hide Click on the current expenses For most departments behind health and defense.

The work has inherited chaos that cannot occur. But she also stumbled with assumptions and tax pledges. Its economic strategy was built on the belief that changing the government will restore confidence and thus start the recovery led by the investment, and is due to government spending on infrastructure, housing and clean energy. The growth that this will secure would finance the aspirations of the wider work.

The Labor Party was fortified in the elections, which were fortified with this belief and terror from the attacks of the conservative campaigns in the elections, and promised rigid financial rules and the failure to increase income tax, national insurance, value -added tax or corporate tax. (Although Reeves pushed the limits of this pledge a significant increase in NICS for employers and retaining the freezing of the Conservative Party over the thresholds of income tax.) Unfortunately, the higher growth has not yet been achieved, and Trump’s presidency has added economic pressures and the collapse of the Labor Party in the popularity.

The rules and pledges of Reeves are no longer identical to the limited political pain that the party carries to bear. Its financial bases will not cancel, nor should she be canceled. Regardless of the concerns related to the response of the market, it will destroy the discipline between deputies of spending. There is no stomach in the party, or perhaps the country, for large spending cuts (saving money for asylum seekers). Work concerns that restrictions will lead to pledges of housing and public services.

Starmer is already Decons from the cuts to retired fuel Payments, which the deputies blame the results of the disastrous local elections last month. This alone will not be disastrous. Voters love to listen to. But many deputies see it as a green light to resist other luxury discounts, specifically for the benefits of deficit, and demanding the opposite of the Conservative Party’s ceiling for payments for families that have more than two children.

However, the broader issue is that the spending review, which covers many of the rest of this term, will leave many problems without treatment. Local councils can still go bust and warn universities against closing. Social care is still in the crisis. Police chiefs are carrying out general campaigns For additional money, not the least of which is to handle plans for more premature prison issues and societal provisions. Even the defense, the winner of most measures, has been rejected so far A fixed date to strike the goal of spending From 3 percent of GDP in strategic defense review for this week. This in itself is less than NATO demands.

Representatives are increasingly what one calls the absence of a “moral narration”. The words of the “Change Plan” ministerial pepper in an attempt to manage the depletion of public patience, but this hardly converts the condemnation. One of Starmer’s ally argues that many options seem driven by the treasury needs rather than a strategy to improve the lives of those who aspire to power.

With unmistakable financial rules and hardening of the reductions, Reeves will soon have to search elsewhere. One of the senior families admits that it is now only about the required “amount of revenues”. Some critics argue that they should beg to the new circumstances of Trump’s presidency and break the statement of the statement of statement. But governments require really exceptional conditions to justify the violation of explicit pledges, no matter how fool.

So Reeves will search for ghost increases, such as lengthening income tax sills on at least the income tax sills for high papers. Other ideas that have been appointed include taxes on the gambling industry, enhance the mitigation of pension tax, or a gap closure on stamp fees for commercial property. Firm Decrease in gasoline prices Since 2022, the end of freezing on the fuel duty has been justified.

The central question is not whether Reeves will raise taxes in the autumn budget but to what extent do you feel able to go. The political strategy prohibits beating ordinary voters. It has so far shown little appetite for tax reform; The works have been severely renewed and the efforts made to collect more non -servers that seemed to have Opposite. The decisive danger to this government continues to decrease between each stools, raising enough tax to thwart growth but not enough to meet the ambitions of spending.

Before her first budget, Reeves confirmed that the huge tax work was “one and she did.” What seemed optimistic and then looks unnecessary now. Perhaps she and Sarmar can use additional advice after all.

[email protected]