
Rachel Reeves must take back control of the growth agenda
Yet, as the latest report from the OECD shows, that objective has been far from fulfilled – and will become even more difficult to achieve, at least over the coming year or so.
The organisation's downgraded UK growth forecasts – 1.3 per cent this year, and 1 per cent for 2026 – are miserable, and will do nothing to lift confidence among consumers and investors, nor banish the dismal mood in her party about its electoral prospects. For most people, there is no practical difference between living in an economy with such minimal expansion and one that is stagnant or in a mild recession.
Ms Reeves's problem is that, fiscally speaking, she likes to live dangerously – or, at least, that is how things have turned out. She has never provided herself with sufficient leeway in meeting her self-imposed fiscal rules to withstand the kind of bad luck or more serious shocks to the economy that might come any chancellor's way.
Such unfortunate developments have been all too frequent in her time in office, and that has led to a sort of perma-crisis over tax, spending and borrowing, with politically sensitive cuts to benefits adding to the sense of jeopardy.
Time and again, Reeves has created the thinnest of margins of error – about £10bn, in a spending total of around £1,300bn – and, time and again, it has been wiped out. Sometimes, that has been because of the usual vicissitudes, such as inflation proving more stubborn than usual, and elsewhere because of unpredictable events, most obviously Donald Trump's gyrating attitude to tariffs.
But she has made her own mistakes, too. Cutting the pensioners' winter fuel payment yielded minimal additional revenues for maximum electoral loss, and she placed too much emphasis on raising employers' national insurance contributions, which appears to have had a more depressing effect than thought.
Her biggest gamble, however, has been in hoping that she could meet her fiscal rules by the absurdly small margins she allowed herself. The OECD recommends that the chancellor 'steps up' her efforts to create a more comfortable buffer against adversity, and Ms Reeves would be as well to take their advice.
The comprehensive spending review next week is the best opportunity she will have on that side of the ledger to inspire confidence that she is indeed making the right kinds of tough choices – ones that protect the most vulnerable, as well as boosting growth. At the Budget in the autumn, she will have another chance to 'kitchen-sink' the measures needed to avoid the periodic crises that have unnerved markets and so drained confidence in the government.
The OECD suggests a 'balanced' approach: targeted spending cuts, including the closure of tax loopholes; revenue-raising measures such as re-evaluating council tax bands for the first time since they were introduced in 1991; and the removal of distortions in the tax system.
These reforms to taxation would probably mean a fairer and more rational system, and might thus make the economy a little more healthy. But the main effect must be to chart a medium-term fiscal strategy that markets can have confidence in, which provides room for the Bank of England to ease interest rates, and, at last, puts the government back in control of events, rather than being pushed around by them.
Few governments have foundered as swiftly as the Starmer administration, but that does not mean recovery, both economic and political, is impossible.
Far from it. This early in the parliament, and with such a substantial majority at the government's disposal, Ms Reeves has a chance to put right the mistakes she made in her first months, and move beyond (rightly) chastising the Conservatives for their complacency and banging on about the notorious £22bn 'black hole'. To borrow a phrase popular in government circles, she should have gone further and faster last year to sort the public finances out for the rest of the parliament.
The good news for her and her colleagues is that it is not too late to lay those firm fiscal foundations for growth. But this year, she should play safe, take more notice of the raw politics of her choices, and develop a more compelling narrative about the future rewards for prudence. It will be painful, but not as uncomfortable as watching another wager fail. She will indeed need an iron determination.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations" and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. "Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry," said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, "the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet," said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy," Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank.


Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Britain facing pension poverty 'time bomb' as Rachel Reeves' tax grab helps crater retirement savings by 20 per cent in six months
Britain is facing a pension poverty 'time bomb' after Rachel Reeves ' punishing tax grab helped plunge retirement savings by 20 per cent in six months. Survey figures suggest Britons may have been reducing their pension contributions since Christmas as the economy reacted to Labour's new tax regime. The Chancellor's national insurance hike has been partly blamed for high inflation this year, raising the cost of goods and services. Critics said last night the increased cost of living is 'squeezing' households and preventing people from putting money away for their retirement. As a result, the average monthly pension contribution has slumped to £53.40 this month from £59.10 in April and £65.10 in December. This is the first time in two years contributions have dropped for six months in a row, according to data from the House Money Index compiled by price comparison website MoneySuperMarket. At the same time, average household spending on bills and other outgoings surged by 12 per cent to £1,564 per month. The data showed the average Brit is now shelling out £52.14 per day on essentials, up from £46.40 in December. Kara Gammell, personal finance expert at MoneySuperMarket, said: 'People are reducing their private and workplace pension contributions, perhaps to help offset rising costs and stretched household finances.' Last night, Helen Whately MP, shadow pensions secretary, said: 'Britain is facing a pension poverty time bomb of Labour's making. 'By squeezing the public with more taxes and higher bills, people are being forced to make terrible choices – choices we won't see the full consequence of for years. 'The Conservatives will always stand on the side of the makers – those who work hard, do the right thing, and want to get on in life. 'And so we will hold Labour to account for the economic mess they are making.' John O'Connell, chief executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'Sky-high taxes and soaring living costs mean hard-pressed households are dipping into their retirement savings just to stay afloat.' This month, the Office for National Statistics said UK inflation jumped higher than economists had expected to 3.6 per cent in June, up from 3.4 per cent in May. It marked the steepest increase since January 2024, with critics blaming Mrs Reeves' 'job tax'. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the Government was reviving New Labour's Pensions Commission to help people save more. She said: 'People deserve to know they will have a decent income in retirement – with all the security, dignity and freedom that brings. 'But the truth is, that is not the reality facing many people, especially if you're low paid, or self-employed.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EU urges Ukraine to uphold independent anti-corruption bodies; Zelenskiy signals swift action
BRUSSELS, July 27 (Reuters) - European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on Sunday for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to uphold independent anti-corruption bodies, with the Ukrainian leader signaling that supporting legislation could be adopted within days. "Ukraine has already achieved a lot on its European path. It must build on these solid foundations and preserve independent anti-corruption bodies, which are cornerstones of Ukraine's rule of law," von der Leyen said in a post on X after a call with Zelenskiy. After a rare outburst of public criticism, Zelenskiy on Thursday submitted draft legislation to restore the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies - reversing course of an earlier bill aimed at stripping their autonomy. "I thanked the European Commission for the provided expertise," Zelenskiy said in a post on X after his Sunday call with von der Leyen. "We share the same vision: it is important that the bill is adopted without delay, as early as next week." Von der Leyen also promised continued support for Ukraine on its path to EU membership. "Ukraine can count on our support to deliver progress on its European path," she added.