Quick thread shamelessly plagiarising/summarising the @OBR_UK's presentation just now (because v interesting). First, GDP forecasts better but still extremely painful.
This is the key slide for me, on which so much else rests - inflation spike expected to subside to a nice neat 2%. Business leaders I've spoken to are sceptical to say the least...
On tax, Sunak is clearly funding the extra spending from his tax rises - but keeping much of the cash back to cut borrowing/as a buffer against instability
And here is that historically high tax burden broken down further
OBR flag that the new fiscal rules mean the Chancellor is now lashed to multiple masts - should be OK but something to watch for...
Good news on unemployment, which is way lower than was feared (though they expect it to rise slightly from this point, vs Bank of England who don't - explains some of the difference in scarring assumptions)
For those who were upset that the OBR gave Sunak extra time to do the spending review (as it did Osborne in 2015), here's the impact of that - you can see how inflation and interest rates bite into headroom...
Finally, here are the OBR's conclusions. Lighter scarring but still historically large state. More here obr.uk/efo/economic-a…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
‘If you want to raise serious money, it is a childish fantasy to pretend that you can do so solely from the few rather than the many.’ Me in @thetimes today on why Labour MPs and activists calling for a wealth tax need to grow up fast. Thread fellows (1/?)
The same Labour voices who blocked welfare reforms, forcing Reeves to raise taxes, are now calling for all manner of other goodies - while pretending that the necessary tax rises can be simple and painless. But they absolutely can’t.
As I point out in my column (link below), we already tax the rich! Let’s look at the income tax stats.
The problem isn’t that the Chancellor is going to raise taxes. It’s that unless something drastic changes, she and her successors are going to have to do it again, and again, and again. Me for @thetimes - thread follows (1/?)
My column today is on Reeves’s tax rises. But my core argument is that what we’re seeing is the earlier-than-expected arrival of what’s always been coming - an irreconcilable clash between how much we want to spend, and how much we can afford to. thetimes.com/comment/column…
Obviously, Labour’s tax rises, and the summer of uncertainty that preceded them, were horrendous for growth - and as @ArmitageJim says in this great analysis piece, we’re in for exactly the same summer thetimes.com/uk/politics/ar…
I am normally a slavish devotee of @Dannythefink, but I think this on the Online Safety Act misses the mark profoundly (1/?) thetimes.com/comment/column…
Danny's thesis is that the OSA has just come in, and we should approach it with an open mind until we know how it's actually working. But that ignores everything about how the OSA was put together, and in particular the staggering ignorance shown by lawmakers during that process.
Everyone who knew even the slightest bit about tech had profound concerns about this law, ranging from the core idea of 'legal but harmful' speech, to the chilling effect on tech investment, to the way a law meant to target Google/Meta would actually entrench their dominance.
New analysis from @CPSThinkTank today shows the state is spending almost £24k for every adult in the UK. As I say in my column, this means we are likely spending more than *every single one of us is earning*. And it’s only going to get worse. (1/?)
Why is it going to increase? Because of the lie at the heart of the spending review. Reeves wanted to end austerity - but there wasn’t any money. So she put all the increases into the first half of the parliament.
That means Labour is set to go into the election off the back of more ‘Tory austerity’ - overall departmental spending rising by just 1% a year, but much, much less for most departments given that includes 3% pa for the NHS (which is, as ever, getting most of the extra cash).
Starmer says Whitehall is filled with 'a cottage industry of checkers and blockers'. It’s too hard 'for the most enterprising people in country to just get on with the job'. So he's going to cut compliance costs for firms by 25%. Great! Just a few minor problems... (1/?)
In his speech, Starmer cited Alison, a brewer and publican, who has to spend hours filling in forms. But Alison is about to be hammered by NIC rises and minimum wage hikes!
Then there's the Employment Rights Bill, voted through the Commons on literally the same day as Starmer's speech, which will... raise compliance costs for business, by between £0.9bn & £4.5bn (though we'll come back to that).
Welfare reform is not just a fiscal necessity, but a moral one - because as I argue in @thetimes today we're not just paying people off, but writing them off. (1/?)
The govt is set to announce a rumoured £5bn in benefit cuts. It's already hugely controversial. Yet as I point out in my column today, it would cover just 1/16th of the predicted increase in the welfare bill. thetimes.com/comment/column…
Of course, a lot of that is pensions (hi, triple lock!). But the other big driver is ill health. Today, 9.3 million people of working age are economically inactive, and 6m on out of work benefits. Of those, 2.8 million are inactive due to illness - up from 2m before the pandemic.