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
Have written my column on one of the most interesting political essays I've ever read, because it argues that essentially everything modern British politicians think about political and economic strategy is completely wrong. (1/?)
The full thing doesn't seem to be available online, but its core argument over 35 pages is, essentially, that voters are not idiots - that if you do tough, necessary stuff and explain it, you will end up in a better place than via relentless short-term pandering.
Douglas - Labour finance minister in NZ in the 1980s - basically out-Thatchered Thatcher. He argues that the stuff voters ended up hating was always where the govt chickened out - and that sweeping action is actually safer than small steps, because it outflanks vested interests.
Striking findings from @NatCen on migration. View that it is a cultural/economic negative has risen sharply post-Boriswave, but overall levels still not as negative as pre-Brexit. But there has also been huge polarisation... (1/3)
As @Sirjohncurtice says (this is screenshot from Zoom), those on right are even more -ve about migration than previously - but those on left still think it's broadly a good thing.
@Sirjohncurtice Obviously overall all the polling shows people think migration has been way too high - and as @Dominic2306 says don't even realise how high it's been - but what is new is this wide and widening gap b/t left on right on whether migration is a good thing full stop.
Last week, the price of natural gas dipped below 72p/therm. It was a significant moment. Why? Because according to Ed Miliband's maths, it's impossible. (1/?)
Ed has said, again and again, that swapping gas for wind is not just greener but cheaper. It's at the heart of his promise to lower bills. But as I argue in @thetimes today, it's built on a lie.
When Ed came to power, he commissioned NESO to show that his plans would save money. He claimed the resulting report proved it. It didn't.
A friend points out a £1bn problem with the Budget measures on employee ownership trusts. It's a bad idea anyway - employee share ownership is good! - but it's made worse by a very basic error in the way they've structured it. (1/?)
Under an EOT, a founder sells all or some of their shares to a trust, which passes them on to the workers. They pay no tax on the sale. But they don't get the money straight off - the new trust pays for the shares *from the profits in future years*.
Under the new plan, the govt will restrict the tax relief to half of the shares handed over, meaning the rest will be liable to CGT - so working out to 12% of the value. But it will charge that CGT *straight away*.
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves is going to stand up and lie to the public. She's not unique. Every Chancellor does. That's because, as a new @CPSThinkTank report shows, our Budget system is fundamentally broken. (1/?)
Every Chancellor claims they'll balance the books by the end of 'the forecast period' or 'the economic cycle'. Every Chancellor, at every Budget, meets their fiscal rules. And yet the debt grows and grows. What's happening?
As I pointed out in my column yesterday, there are all sorts of problems with our five-year forecasts - in the words of Simon Case to @ShippersUnbound, you're trying to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. Here for example are OBR predictions vs eventual reality.
As the country prepares for Budget-geddon, there is one precedent that the govt is desperately clinging on to: 2002, when a Labour government raised income taxes - and shot up in the polls. How did they do it? (1/?)
In 2002, Gordon Brown raised NI by 1p to fund a historic expansion in NHS spending - in pursuit of Tony Blair's (impromptu) commitment to match European health spending. It was, as the then health secretary said, 'overwhelmingly popular'.
Today, things are v different. But polling by @SteveAkehurst suggests that voters in general - and Labour 2024 voters in particular - might be happier about the govt getting waiting lists down than they would be angry about taxes going up, esp if those taxes are on 'the rich'.