Economy

The government came into office promising to prioritise economic growth. Now, after their first Budget, I suppose we have some idea of what that means: more borrowing to fund public sector capital projects, and higher tax and regulatory burdens on business. This does not seem very likely to prove a successful recipe, and furthers the impression that this government is likely to fall into the same trap that ensnared its immediate predecessors: managing Britain’s relative economic decline, with no clear idea of how to break out of it. The biggest single item in the Budget is the £25 billion increase in employer National Insurance contributions. There are a few things

We won’t have to speculate about the details of the Labour’s first Budget much longer. But one tradition as old as time has been confirmed by the Treasury: the National Health Service is getting more cash. ‘Our NHS is the lifeblood of Britain,’ the Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said ahead of unveiling her full Budget tomorrow. ‘That’s why I am putting an end to the neglect and underinvestment it has seen for over a decade now.’ This is set to include £1.57 billion of capital spending to expand surgical hubs and provide more equipment. An additional £1.8 billion worth of funding will also be announced to help Labour make good on its

Where did it all go wrong for Volkswagen? The German carmaker is said to be planning to shut several factories and lay off thousands of staff. Workers who do keep their jobs could see their pay cut by as much as ten per cent, according to VW’s top employee representative, Daniela Cavallo. If the revelations are correct, the three factories will be the first to be shuttered in the company’s 87-year history. It is hard to overestimate the scale of the shock that the claims about VW, a company that has always been emblematic of the country’s post-war economic miracle, has delivered to the German economy today. Yet Germany –

Does Labour regret its decision to redefine the meaning of a ‘working person’? The original understanding of the term seemed to be working just fine, until ministers decided to make it the metric for who would and would not be subject to tax rises. Now the party finds itself in the strangest of situations: having to talk down British entrepreneurs and employers, all for the sake of muddling through a painful Budget next week. It was just a few weeks ago that Labour was hosting its highly anticipated investment summit, trying to attract new business, and funding, to the UK. When former Google CEO Eric Schmidt told the Prime Minister

Remember Gordon Brown’s ‘golden rule’ – that over the course of the economic cycle the only net borrowing he would allow was to fund investment? As for current spending, he told us, he would pay down debt in the good times so that he could borrow in the bad. It sounded reassuring, until Brown started to fiddle with the figures in every conceivable way. He shunted debt off the public balance sheet via private finance initiatives.  Is anyone confident that Reeves really will invest her extra £20 billion a year in such a way that it will earn the taxpayer a return? He kept stretching out his idea of the

Ahead of the Budget on 30 October, Rachel Reeves is being bombarded by lobbyists urging her to loot their enemies. The New Economics Foundation wants a ‘jet-setter tax’ on frequent fliers of €100 per flight. Action on Smoking and Health wants a levy on tobacco companies. Greenpeace reckons it can raise at least £26 billion a year by levying a wealth tax on the ‘super-rich’. An assortment of think tanks and pressure groups linked to the Labour donor Derek Webb think they can squeeze another £3 billion out of the gambling industry by doubling gaming and betting duties. Meanwhile in Scotland, the neo-temperance lobby are demanding a ‘levy’ on alcohol retailers who, they claim, are getting rich off

Could Rachel Reeves really be so brazen as to lumber private sector employers with having to pay national insurance contributions (NICs) on their employees’ pension contributions – but to spare public sector employers the same burden? That is what is being reported this morning. It has been suggested that, in next week’s Budget, the Chancellor will announce the end of an exemption for private sector employers, which currently ensures employers don’t pay NICs on pension contributions. At the same time, Reeves is proposing to instantly compensate public sector bodies so they are effectively spared from have to bear the burden. This would be crass for two reasons. Firstly it would

Some thought Rachel Reeves’s experience at the Bank of England meant she ‘knew how to run the economy’. She would keep an iron grip on budgets and demand value for money. The reliability of her management of the Treasury would unlock a wave of support from global finance. Ahead of the election, Reeves, along with fanboys such as the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, boasted endlessly about her financial and economic expertise. But only four months into her time in No. 11, there are already alarming signs she has lost control of spending.  The public sector borrowing figures published today were far worse than expected. The government borrowed