Tag Archives: fiscal rules

Vince Cable writes…Labour and Fiscal Rules

The nation waits for the people of Makerfield to decide whether Keir Starmer will face a challenge from his most plausible and electable Labour critic. Were Andy Burnham to emerge victorious and to challenge for the party leadership, this would signal a shift to what is being called the ‘soft left’.

One of the most deeply held convictions of those in this political space is that the government is being held back from more ‘progressive’ policies by unduly restrictive fiscal rules which exist to reassure ‘the bond markets’ that the UK is a trustworthy, reliable borrower.

Andy Burnham’s position on the …

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 27 Comments

Should Lib Dems rethink our new fiscal rules after our successful General Election campaign?

Following the announcement of the new (so-called) £22bn ‘Black Hole’ in the Government’s finances, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has announced over £3bn in departmental spending cuts, making the winter fuel allowance mean-tested, and scrapping the previous government’s social care reforms (which set a maximum of £86,000 on a person’s personal care costs) meant to be implemented eventually in October 2025.

During the General Election it was generally recognised that there would need to be cuts to the non-protected departmental budgets, which the Resolution Foundation said could be as much as £33bn and the IMF said could be about £30bn. During the General Election the Labour Party talked of less than £10bn in extra government spending.

In our Manifesto we suggested how £19bn more could be raised from increased and new taxes. These included  buy-backs, increased taxes on social media firms and tech giants and reforming capital gains tax, as well as including one copied by the Labour Party, higher taxes on the energy giants (but raising £900 million less than ours).

There is a way forward, which our pre-Manifesto passed in the Autumn Conference of 2023 proposed. We stated that we would  “safeguard the UK’s economic prosperity while making the investments our country needs. We will make sure that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount of money raised in taxes over the medium term…”

However, in our Manifesto those words were replaced with, “Foster stability, certainty and confidence in managing the public finances responsibly to get the national debt falling as a share of the economy and ensure that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount raised in taxes, while making the investments our country needs.”

Why make that change? It would leave us on the same horns of a dilemma as the new Chancellor has. You can’t simultaneously pledge to reduce the national debt AND pledge to make the investment the country needs, in one parliamentary term.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 130 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ Paul, I accept you are agreeing to an extent. A limited extent. "There are ample legal mechanisms for ensuring that the financial settlement with t...
  • Paul WalterPaul Walter
    Peter: “We shouldn’t tolerate the term “Crown Dependency” being a synonym for “tax haven”.” I don’t know whether you are actually reading my ...
  • David Raw
    I rather thought the 3rd Duke and Duchess of Atholl sold the Isle of Man's feudal and sovereign rights in 1765 for £70,000 via the Isle of Man Purchase Act 176...
  • Roland
    @Peter Martin - I was responding to the curved ? ball Jeff throw out about Motability: If they can't charge VAT then its okay to reclaim the VAT rather than sim...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Simon, "Low earners on the IOM pay tax at 21% compared to – I think – 20% in the UK" I don't know where you get your IOM figure from. It is easy eno...