|
Rachel Reeves has shown dogged determination to keep within some strict spending commandments known as the fiscal rules. These are meant to offer assurances that the UK – and the Labour government – is responsible with its cash. But the chancellor’s rules met reality this week when she delivered her spring statement, outlining more cuts to welfare than expected. With her financial buffer wiped out by world events, Reeves had to cut spending to get the ship back on course – or risk breaking the rules.
As a former chess champion, maybe Reeves is a stickler for rules. But the economy is not chess, and she can change these rules if she wants to (she imposed them on herself). Former home secretary David Blunkett has written for us arguing that now is the time to do just that. He believes that Reeves is gripped by the fear of being seen as another Liz Truss (look her up, she was prime minister once). Truss wasn’t one for rules, and it was a disaster.
But Reeves is going too far the other way, Lord Blunkett argues. As someone who has been in government, he knows the importance of not spooking investors. But slavishly sticking to rules that inflict pain and were devised before Trump, tariffs and everything else that’s upsetting her economic plan may not be the right move.
And as the dust settles on the spring statement, Reeves will continue to come in for heat about cutting welfare while increasing defence spending. Our panel of experts responded on the day with their take on what it means for those on benefits, UK security and the country’s economic fortunes in general.
The government has introduced its crime and policing bill, which proposes making it a criminal offence to conceal your identity at a protest. At the same time, police forces are expanding their use of live facial recognition (real-time identity checks). Combined, our experts argue, these two developments are a threat to the already-diminished protest and privacy rights in the UK.
|
