b'

'

Following a £30bn raid in this year’s Budget, Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out the possibility of introducing more tax rises next year. The Chancellor, who has been accused by the Tories of breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to put up taxes on working people, hinted there could be more to come in next year’s Budget.

Many readers expressed outrage at Labour’s spending and asked whether any cuts had actually been made during her announcement on Wednesday. Genevieve Holl-Allen, The Telegraph’s political correspondent; Sam Brodbeck, our Money editor; Szu Ping Chan, our economics editor; and Camilla Tominey, an associate editor, joined you in the comments to discuss the political fallout.

One reader, Rick Tuck, wondered about Reeves’s spending.

He asked: “Has Reeves cut actual spending ANYWHERE?”

Genevieve Holl-Allen said: “It is definitely true to say, Rick, that she has cut spending by even less than she said that she would – this is chiefly evident in welfare. Benefits spending will be £16bn a year higher in 2029 than planned, and the welfare bill is now expected to rise to £406.2bn in the next five years.

“Rachel Reeves is keen to try and make efficiency savings in the public sector and hopes that AI might be able to save money too.

“But she is desperate to not be accused of a return to austerity by voters and backbenchers. This means any big cuts in services appear a political impossibility for her.”

Many readers, including Frank Johnson, questioned what exactly the Chancellor thought would help working people and the middle classes in Wednesday’s Budget.

He said: “So, she’s going to put money in our pockets – but we all have to pay more. How does that make us better off?”

Sam Brodbeck said: “You make a good point Frank! I’m not sure anyone will feel better off (apart from people with more than three kids who are on benefits perhaps). We got confirmation the triple lock will boost state pensions by around £550 a year but more of that boost will be lost to income tax.”

Reeves mentioned Liz Truss more than once during her Budget speech and Richard O’Brien wondered how much longer they could refer to her tenure.

He said: “Hiya, Sam, Labour keep blaming Liz Truss. Given that 90pc of her mini-Budget was reversed, does this not seem to be somewhat of a poor excuse for the Government to use?”

Sam Brodbeck said: “Yes I noticed this ... I think she was mentioned three times yesterday. It is a poor excuse but any party other than the Tories will mention her tenure as much as possible for the next decade I imagine!”

Mark Time questioned the Chancellor’s economics.

He said: “I wonder what economic principles [Reeves] is using where she is fast losing control of inflation and so she taxes savings to increase minimum wages, and welfare payments to ensure the welfare lifestyle is viable?”

Szu Ping Chan said: “It’s ideology. On the minimum wage, for example, Labour keeps coming back to the same old arguments. People who were bleating in 1999 about its introduction were wrong. People who were bleating when George Osborne upgraded it were wrong. But this time is different. Paying a teenager the same rate as someone in their late twenties is just a recipe for youth unemployment. Meanwhile, the inflation gremlin gets us all.”

Reader Humpty Dumpty suggested Reeves is making it up as she goes along.

They said: “She has ‘gambled’ on a better-than-currently-predicted economic outcome over the next five years, and has attempted to create the ‘headroom’ to allow cuts prior to the next election (without this the Labour Party are ‘doomed, I say doomed’!).

“If, however, things are as bad as predicted, then she has taxed us (in her mind) correctly. I think she will continue to ‘make it up as she goes along’ while the party tolerates her in the job!”

Szu Ping Chan replied: “Gamble is the right word. Richard Hughes, the boss of the OBR, said this morning that there wasn’t a single measure in this Budget that was likely to move the dial on growth. Headroom of £22bn is still wafer-thin for a £3trn economy. She talks the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, I feel like things are going in reverse.”

Labour backbenchers have been vociferous in their opposition to some of Reeves’s policy proposals and readers like Dylan Ratcliffe wondered how much pressure she is under.

He asked: “Not that it matters, but do we think Reeves is making such decisions because she wants to, or because she’s been hustled into it by her backbenchers?”

Genevieve Holl-Allen said: “A pretty inescapable conclusion from this Budget, Dylan, is that one of the bigger spending measures announced came from sustained backbench pressure: the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.

“There has been a clamour from Labour backbenchers to remove this limit pretty much since Labour took office.

“Reeves and Starmer were standing firm on this, trying to show that they were strong on the economy and could not be cowed into making decisions they couldn’t pay for.

“But as the Government has grown weaker and more unpopular, the Chancellor and PM have had to work a bit harder to keep those backbenchers on side, especially when major figures like deputy Labour leader Lucy Powell, and once-mooted leadership challenger Andy Burnham, have made it clear it must go as soon as possible.

“And even those sympathetic to Labour are saying that the rises in tax are to pay for welfare. Benefits spending will be £16bn a year higher in 2029 than the Chancellor had planned in the spring.”

Reader Sarwan Singh wondered how long Reeves and Starmer can last after this Budget.

They asked: “The litmus test of this Budget is if Reeves and Starmer can last longer than Truss and kamikaze Kwarteng … and how the bond and gilt markets react. Can they last longer than a lettuce?”

Genevieve Holl-Allen replied: “One of the problems that Reeves and the Government has faced over the last few weeks is all the leaks, which the deputy speaker yesterday said were the worst of any previous Budget.

“But what this does mean is that the markets (and the public) have known a great deal about what to expect from the Chancellor, unlike the big shock of the mini-Budget with its £45bn of tax cuts. That has meant a slightly less dramatic response than in September 2022.

“The Chancellor and the Prime Minister may last longer than a lettuce, but they certainly aren’t out of the woods.”

Labour has changed its mind over many policies and readers like Mel Shaw wondering what the plan exactly is.

They said: “What is the plan? Reeves must think she has one. Can anyone work out what it is?”

Genevieve Holl-Allen said: “I was struck by something that George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor, said on his Political Currency podcast last night, which is that this Budget was an ‘off-strategy’ fiscal event for Reeves, and I think he’s right.

“The Chancellor at the previous Budget had said that she would not be coming back for more tax, and even said that she would not continue the freeze in income tax thresholds as it would ‘hurt working people’. But she isn’t getting the growth she wanted, and the welfare reforms she wanted to see through were scuppered by her backbenchers, so she had to find another path.

“It does seem that her plan with this Budget now is to create as much headroom as possible, of around £22bn by the end of the current Parliament, so that she has a bigger buffer zone to changing fiscal forecasts.”

Readers like Phillip Norris also asked why Reeves refuses to take accountability.

He said: “I just love the spin given by her: the tax free amount was frozen by the Conservatives until 2028 — as though it was a very bad thing — then next breath she increases it by three years to 2031!

“The blame game began in earnest as soon as she could mention it. So the whole problem is Trump, Truss, Brexit, Reform and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Anyone, anything other than themselves, because it would mean they would need to take responsibility and accountability.”

Genevieve Holl-Allen replied: “Rachel Reeves has continued to point back to the previous 14 years of Conservative government, in particular Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and the handling of Brexit, to explain Britain’s current financial woes.

“That rhetoric is likely to have helped them win the general election, with voters fed up with the Tories, but you have to wonder how much more patience the electorate will have if they continue to see their finances stretched and their taxes high after many months of a Labour administration.

“The 2026 local elections and elections in Holyrood and the Senedd might give us the answer.”

James Turner asked if the Chancellor is aware that she has broken her manifesto pledge.

He said: “I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out to Reeves that she has raised tax rates – on savings interest, property income, and dividends.”

Camilla Tominey replied: “The Telegraph has pointed that out loudly and clearly.

“The figures are clear: £26bn of extra taxes, with the tax take up to 42.4 as a percentage of GDP after the end of this parliament. There is no other way to say it: she’s taxing working people to pay for new benefits plus an inflation-linked welfare hike. It’s a clear manifesto breach.”

Phillip Marques questioned when the Government will cease borrowing and begin addressing the national debt.

He said: “This Government did not mention anything about reducing the £2.6tn deficit we have. Do you think they will actually start paying the debt down anytime soon rather than keep borrowing massively?”

Camilla Tominey said: “Rachel Reeves said yesterday: ‘The path of our deficit reduction remains broadly the same as in spring.’

“Back then, she announced we would be moving from a deficit of £36.1bn in 2025-26 and £13.4bn in 2026-27 ... to a surplus of £6.0bn in 2027-28, £7.1bn in 2028-29, and a surplus of £9.9bn in 2029-30. She said: ‘That means that we are continuing to meet the Stability Rule two years early.’

“But debt is a different thing. It’s way too high but it will come down slightly by the end of the parliament. It’s forecast to be 83.3pc in 26/27, 83.6pc in 27/28, 83.7pc in 28/29…falling to 83.0pc in 29/30 and 82.2pc in 30/31.

“NB Debt on this scale is completely unsustainable. It was below 40 as a pc of GDP from 1993 to 2008 when it shot up – and now remains at more than double what it was.”

Try full access to The Telegraph free today. Unlock their award-winning website and essential news app, plus useful tools and expert guides for your money, health and holidays.