Asked about this forecast, in an interview with the BBC Keir Starmer said that he wanted to do “better than that” and that the budget was just the “first step”. He said other policies, like planning reform and deregulation, would “help towards growth”.
2.19pm.)
-
Voting has closed in the Tory leadership contest, and on Saturday the winner – either Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick – will be announced. As PA Media reports, the two candidates have declared another £112,500 in campaign donations. Badenoch has now received a total of £422,500 in campaign donations, and Jenrick has received £480,000.
one saying farms should remain exempt from inheritance tax.
Steve Barclay, the shadow environment secretary, said:
Labours introduction of the family farm tax marks a shameful betrayal of British farmers everywhere.
It will harm rural communities, risk our food security, and make it harder to pass farms to the next generation.
Farmers toil, day and night, to put food on our tables, and foster our countryside – so I am proud to launch this petition, to fight for our farmers, and call on Labour to ditch this cruel tax.
Perhaps Ed Balls will sign? (See 5.11pm.)
to impose inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1m.
Speaking on his Political Currency podcast, he said:
This issue of inheritance tax on family farms, where the limit is £1m before you pay inheritance tax, I think this is going to be one of those things which may become a growing issue in the coming weeks and months. It’s one of those things where you just wonder, ‘Has the Treasury really thought through all the hard cases’.
It’s quite easy to have a low-income, hard-working farming family, which have had their farm for generations, where, if you actually add up the 100 acres of land and the house, is more than £1m, and if the dad dies, have they got to sell the farm to pay the inheritance tax?
To Rachel Reeves and her team that £1m sounds like a big number. I wonder whether, actually, when you really dig into the cases, £1m is a big number or small number for cash-poor, asset-rich farmers.
claims the rise in UK borrowing costs this afternoon has already wiped out Rachel Reeves’s budget headroom. (See 2.35pm and 3.48pm.)
Market moves since the Budget will have already wiped out the headroom against the new fiscal rules.
Liberal Democrats could achieve more than the Conservatives in opposition by taking a less “combative” approach and trying to be constructive where it is helpful, Ed Davey has argued.
Speaking to journalists at a parliamentary press gallery lunch, Davey said the way his party chose to act might “surprise people”, contrasting this with the stances taken both by the Tories and the SNP, the latter of whom were supplanted as the third party by the Lib Dems in the general election.
The SNP’s use of “political game-playing” often did not land well with voters, the Lib Dem MP argued, saying they often preferred a more mature and collegiate approach. For example Lib Dems are offering to work cross-party to reform the care system.
This was also the case with the Conservatives, Davey said, contrasting Rishi Sunak’s final performances in the Commons as opposition leader on Wednesday. He explained:
Prime minister’s questions was quite fun, but then we got to the budget response, and it was back to normal, and Rishi was really quite combative.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have had a go at the government, he had every right to do that. I just think the tone was the wrong tone to adopt, and I like to think that ours, being clear where we agree and disagree, is a better one.
2.19pm.) The spokesperson said:
This is not the limit of [the chancellor’s] ambitions when it comes to growth. The OBR figures don’t take into account a significant range of other reforms that the government’s undertaking, whether it’s planning reform, reforms of the skills system …
This is not the limit of our agenda on growth. Do we want to see higher growth figures to bring in the revenues to fund our public services? Yes, but yesterday was a start.
3.30pm.)
How worried should we (and @RachelReevesMP) be about the slightly nervy reaction from financial markets towards her first Budget?
Short answer: certainly a bit worried.
But perhaps not for the reasons you might expect..
Worth saying at the outset: these markets are volatile.
Trying to interpret movements in govt bonds is v tricky.
They’re moved by all sorts of factors – fiscal, monetary, economic and structural – from all over the world.
So yesterday’s Budget is only one of many factors here…
Even so, there has been a marked rise in UK bond yields following the Budget which is greater than what we’re seeing in other markets.
This morning the UK 10 year bond yield hit the highest level in nearly a year. It’s up 1.7% since yday – far more than US or German equivalents
Now, perhaps the most important thing to say is: this is NOTHING like the reaction we saw following the Truss mini Budget.
Gilts are NOT going up as quickly as they did around then.
Even so, there has definitely been SOME reaction. The pound weakened a bit and gilt yields rose. This despite the fact that most of this Budget was pre-briefed long in advance. Investors are actively re-pricing UK debt. And that matters…
The issue at present isn’t the one @trussliz had to grapple with – a near financial crisis – but something else. The cost of debt servicing is going up. And if debt interest costs goes up it has a direct bearing on the govt’s fiscal plans…
Consider the following line from the OBR’s report yday. If gilt yields go more than 1.3 percentage points above their projections then the govt will break its fiscal rules. Which implies having to change its plans. That would be… awkward
Now consider this in chart form…
👀Right now gilt yields are pretty much halfway towards the danger zone👇
Now… it’s only day one after the Budget. Plenty could happen in the coming weeks and months.
But upshot is @RachelReevesMP‘s room for manoeuvre is ALREADY diminishing because of market moves.
Not good.
The sell-off of UK government bonds has gathered pace, pushing up borrowing costs for the Treasury, Julia Kollewe reports. She says investors have become increasingly alarmed about the sharp rise in borrowing to fund investment.
There are more details on the business live blog.
NHS would be compensated for having to pay national insurance, Streeting said the NHS was “the biggest employer in the land” and that the chancellor had made allowance for this in the budget.
Asked if that would also apply to GPs and to private firms providing NHS services, Streeting said:
Of course there are a number of others involved in delivering health services that will be affected by employer national insurance contributions. I’m working through that now, and I’ll have more to say about that in the coming weeks in terms of what we can do more quickly to deliver the shift I’ve wanted to see for some time, [getting] NHS investment spending out of hospitals into primary care.
Asked again if private companies, and social care companies, which are also having to pay a higher minimum wage, would have to pay the extra national insurance, Streeting said:
Bear in mind, as well, in terms of the increases in local government funding, the £600m allocated to social care in the budget, the chancellor has taken into account those pressures when making budget decisions.
Sarah Montague, the presenter, said that, according to the care sector, the chancellor had definitely not taken those costs into account. She said Care England has claimed the care sector faces extra costs worth £2.4bn as a result of the minimum wage and national insurance increases. She said £600m would not “even touch the sides”.
Streeting said there were various measures in the budget that would help this sector, like the boost to special educational needs funding.
When it was put to him that he seemed to be saying that, while the NHS would be refunded for the national insurance increase, private healthcare companies would not get help, Streeting just repeated his point about wanting to shift more care into primary care.
Montague said: “We’ll take that as a no.”
Office for Budget Responsibility, suggested that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, could end up having to raise more in tax in future budgets because she left herself so little headroom in her figures.
Asked if there was a risk of the chancellor needing to “come back for more”, he replied:
The chancellor has changed the fiscal rules in this budget, but she’s kept the practice of her predecessors in setting aside very little headroom, very little margin for manoeuvre against those rules.
She’s just got £10bn pounds worth of headroom against her target to balance the current budget, £16bn pounds against getting net financial liabilities falling. These are about a third of what her predecessors have set aside against their rules. It’s a tiny fraction of the changes to our borrowing forecasts over a five-year horizon.
Small changes in interest rates, smaller than ones we even saw in terms of the changes in interest rates between the March budget and this budget, would be enough to eliminate that kind of headroom.
Asked again if that meant Reeves would have to come back for more tax revenue, Hughes replied:
There are always risks to the outlook. Chancellors have to set their fiscal policy in light of those risks. This chancellor has set aside very little margin for manoeuvre against the target she has set for herself.
after five years they would not be making any difference.
Asked about this forecast, in an interview with the BBC Keir Starmer said that he wanted to do “better than that” and that the budget was just the “first step”. He said other policies, like planning reform and deregulation, would “help towards growth”.
Source: theguardian.com
