Michael Simmons

Rachel Reeves’s spending review was the ‘most incomprehensible speech I’ve ever heard from a chancellor’, according to Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He spoke to me on today’s edition of Coffee House Shots. In this special episode, I was also joined by Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, to take a wider look at Britain's fiscal and economic problems. Why, despite record tax levels, do our public services feel as if they’re in managed decline? Why do voters’ expectations of the state seem so out of whack with what we actually deliver? We discussed whether Ruth’s predecessor, Torston Bell, was right to claim Labour has ended austerity, and how much the lingering effects of Covid still shape where we are today.

Writing about Britain’s spending plans has started to feel a bit like swimming through treacle. It’s not that there aren’t lots of interesting observations to make about Wednesday’s £300 billion spending announcement. Such as the fact that the NHS sucks up the bulk of the resource spending with a 3 per cent rise in real terms, while every other department combined only grows by 0.2 per cent. Or that the health service will soon take up nearly half of all day-to-day government spending on services. Or that only 13 per cent of Rachel Reeves’s capital spending increase is classed as ‘growth-focused’.It’s hard to pay attention to this because of the sense that the looming fiscal crisis is being largely ignored.

When Rachel Reeves last week tried to shift the narrative around her spending review – from one of fiscal restraint to ‘spend, spend, spend’ – she ‘unveiled’ £113 billion in infrastructure investment. But for those in Westminster with more than a short-term memory, they will have felt a distinct sense of déjà vu. That’s because much of what Reeves announced had already appeared on gov.uk more than 18 months ago. These were Conservative plans, shelved for the election, now revived under a different party banner. Last week, Rachel Reeves announced £1.5 billion in funding to improve trams and buses in south Yorkshire. Eighteen months ago, the plans for south Yorkshire stood at £1.5 billion. In Liverpool, it’s the same story: £1.6 billion then, and £1.

Rachel Reeves has been warned again that the slim headroom against her ‘ironclad’ fiscal rule could be wiped out if growth prospects worsen. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said in its latest economic outlook for the UK that ‘very thin fiscal buffers could be insufficient to provide adequate support without breaching the fiscal rules in the event of renewed adverse shocks’. The OECD also downgraded Britain's growth forecast. It predicted the economy will grow by 1.3 per cent in 2025 and then just 1 per cent next year – a fall from their previous forecast of 1.4 and 1.2 per cent. The OECD said this downgrade was caused by continuing uncertainty surrounding trade caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs and high interest rates.

Changes to how inheritance tax and trusts are treated for non-doms have already put the nation’s finances on shakier ground – something I revealed in a cover story last month. Now, a new report suggests these anti-business Treasury policies may risk killing off Britain’s family firms too. Fresh analysis by the CBI’s economics consultancy, commissioned by Family Business UK, warns that these changes to inheritance tax could jeopardise more than 208,000 full-time jobs over the course of this Parliament. That’s more than the entire construction workforce in London. The report says that as small firms retreat from long-term investment, the wider economic consequences could be severe.