Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?
How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?
We've had a bit of clarity early this morning - and that's a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne's podcast today.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer - which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they're not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government's day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus - i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear - that's not going to change, and there's no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document - a "charter" - alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it's slightly unclear which are subject to the "iron clad" promise - and which aren't.
There's one part of that document coming into focus - with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it's this - a little-known buffer built into the rules.
It's outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she's judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that's fine.
Now there's a caveat - this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it's potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help - this buffer - for Reeves doesn't apply today, or for the next couple of years - it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I'm being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes - but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is - has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way... is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility "iron clad" and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
1:17
And what counts as "rules" and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I've been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: "The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself."
So that sounds clear - but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable - including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
I'm still unsure that change has been ruled out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK's cavalier attitude leaves Afghans facing yet more fear and uncertainty
This week's revelations about the UK's dangerously cavalier treatment of Afghans who worked with British forces are shocking but not surprising. The carelessness with which Britain went to war in Afghanistan was matched by the carelessness with which it left the country and its people to Taliban rule two decades later. In 2001 the US and its allies dressed up a war of revenge for the 9/11 attacks as a moral mission to protect women's rights and build democracy, turning down a Taliban offer to surrender out of a conviction that they could remake Afghanistan as they wished. In the summer of 2021, with the full withdrawal of US forces looming, it was clear the Afghan government they had propped up for years was fragile. Many of the Afghans who backed it, worked for it or believed in broader western promises of long-term support for democracy and human rights were at risk. Despite Taliban promises of moderation in 2021, there was no room for complacency. The militants marked their previous capture of Kabul in 1996 by killing a former president and hanging his mutilated body from a lamp-post. They assassinated officials, activists, journalists and others throughout the war. Yet, at most, western embassies' plans for immediate evacuations focused only on international staff. The UK timeline for processing asylum requests of Afghans who remained, and who had worked for or fought with British diplomats and troops was measured in months. As the Taliban marched towards Kabul, foreign secretary Dominic Raab's decision to manage the situation from a beach holiday in Crete summed up the UK government's lack of urgency. With Afghan lives at immediate risk and Britain's long-term credibility on the line, Raab clarified that although he was not available to take a call with the Afghan foreign minister, 'no one was paddle-boarding' at the beach. It was an attitude that may have been bolstered by a similar approach in other European capitals. After Kabul fell, Afghan employees turned up for work at one embassy to find international diplomats had been evacuated overnight, while they hadn't even been warned to stay at home. Desperate crowds gathered around the airport as western governments tried to set up mass evacuation operations on the fly. Nearly 200 people were killed by an Islamic State suicide attack on people waiting hours for a chance to leave. In the UK, civil servants were pulled in from their normal jobs to work around the clock processing in hours asylum that would normally have needed weeks. It was exhausting, stressful work, and many of them felt personal responsibility for ensuring vulnerable individuals could reach safety. They did not feel that burden was shared by everyone in government. Whistleblowers said the then-prime minister, Boris Johnson, ordered Whitehall to prioritise the evacuation of staff and pets from an animal rescue charity, not a historical Taliban target. He denies this, but hundreds of emails about the issue clogged up official inboxes. Those whose asylum requests were being considered by UK authorities, because of work at the embassy or with British forces, at least had hope of a route out. Neither the US nor its allies appeared to have given serious thought to the safety of Afghans whose work on issues like democracy and women's rights had been key to the western mission – but who had no obvious route for asylum because they were not directly employed by foreign governments. Desperate social media messages went around seeking any refuge for prominent lawmakers, athletes and activists whose work and lives made them obvious targets. In less than two weeks, the airlift ended. Some of those who did not make it to the airport went into hiding to try to escape the revenge attacks that began almost immediately. Hundreds of killings have been documented by human rights groups. Others fled to Iran or Pakistan, where Afghans struggle to get refugee status. The UK system returned to its usual lethargic timelines after the media spotlight moved on, so families waited in terrified limbo for asylum bids to be processed, fearing expulsion back to Afghanistan and Taliban agents operating abroad. Now thousands of people inside Afghanistan and beyond it must grapple with another layer of fear and uncertainty about what the Taliban know of their work with foreign forces, their family networks and their desire to escape. Not all those Afghans who sought resettlement in the UK were eligible, but applying for asylum should not have put them at greater risk. The damage of the leak has been compounded by the decision to leave people affected in the dark for years, so they could not even make informed decisions about managing their security. As it has done again and again, the UK has let down Afghans who made the mistake of believing the basic principles Britain claims for itself and promised for Afghanistan.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves vows to slash red tape 'choking innovation' - and is warned deregulation could lead to a replay of 2008 bank crisis
has vowed to slash the red tape that is 'choking off' Britain's 'enterprise and innovation'. But it came amid warnings that her plan risks causing economic chaos – with a similar push for deregulation blamed for the financial crisis and global recession of 2008. Delivering her annual Mansion House speech tonight in the City of London, Ms Reeves also confirmed plans to make it easier for banks and building societies to offer more mortgages at 4.5 times a buyer's income – a restriction brought in after the financial crash – which is expected to benefit more first-time buyers. On Tuesday night Ms Reeves said: 'In too many areas, regulation still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses, choking off the enterprise and innovation that is the lifeblood of growth. 'Regulators must take up the call I make this evening, not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution but to boldly regulate for growth in the service of prosperity across our country.' The Treasury is carrying out a line-by-line review of regulation affecting financial services, with a view to stripping it back to make the UK 'supercompetitive'. Ms Reeves believes that ensuring Britain is in sync with its competitors – which includes reforming strict rules on investment banking brought in after the great financial crisis that saw Northern Rock collapse – will make the country a more attractive place to do business, driving growth and investment. But she also hopes that reducing regulation for financial services will encourage businesses and individuals to take informed risks when it comes to investing in stocks and shares. To this end, Ms Reeves will launch an advertising campaign on the benefits of investing – which has drawn parallels with the 1986 'Tell Sid' adverts encouraging ordinary people to buy shares in British Gas when it was being privatised. And banks will be able to alert customers about specific investment opportunities, in the hope it will encourage those with cash sitting in low-return current accounts to move it into stocks and shares. But deregulation also comes with risks, and economists have pointed to the recession that followed the financial crash. Chaitanya Kumar, head of economy and environment at the New Economics Foundation thinktank, told the Guardian: 'It feels like groundhog day. We've been here before, expecting the financial sector to do most of the heavy lifting in terms of growth. 'The 2008 crash and what followed should have been a very strong lesson to everybody in not completely letting the financial services sector off its leash, but that's what we seem to be doing.' And Jesse Griffiths, chief executive of The Finance Innovation Lab charity, said: 'Buying the City's push for deregulation risks increasing the risks of costly financial crises.' In 2011, then shadow chancellor Ed Balls apologised for Labour's failures when in government which contributed to the 2008 crisis. He said: 'All around the world the banks behaved irresponsibly, but regulation wasn't tough enough. We were part of that. I'm sorry for that mistake – I deeply, deeply regret it.' Treasury officials insisted last night that financial stability remained key for the Chancellor, and that her reforms were aimed at a regulatory culture which 'excessively' focuses on risk. The Chancellor also said new powers to force pension funds to invest in UK assets – such as infrastructure projects – were 'sending a clear signal' the Government wants to deliver higher returns for savers and more investment for the economy. 'But I am confident I will not need to use that power because firms see the urgency and importance of this as clearly as I do,' she added. On Tuesday night, Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Rachel Reeves should have used her speech to rule out massive tax rises. 'The fact she didn't should send a shiver down the spine of taxpayers across the country.'
Rhyl Journal
12 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Britain cannot grow without ‘fighting fit' finance sector, Rachel Reeves says
Ms Reeves, delivering her annual Mansion House speech to the financial services sector, said changes were needed for the UK to stay competitive in a more uncertain global economy. 'Today, I have placed financial services at the heart of the Government's growth mission, recognising that Britain cannot succeed and meet its growth ambitions without a financial services sector that is fighting fit and thriving,' she told the attendees. She said the Government was delivering on its pledge, made at last year's Mansion House speech, to 'regulate for growth and not just for risk'. The Treasury announced a package of reforms on Tuesday aimed at attracting more investment to the UK, and among individual consumers, to help grow the economy. Ms Reeves said this involves 'rolling back regulation that has gone too far in seeking to eliminate risk', with plans to cut red tape in the City and reform banking rules including the ring-fencing regime. The UK is currently an outlier in forcing banks to separate their retail and investment banking activities, so reforms are hoped to make Britain more competitive globally. Ms Reeves also highlighted efforts to boost retail investment which she said is currently presented 'in a negative light, quick to warn people of the risks without giving proper weight to the benefits'. Plans include potentially changing the language of risk warnings on investment products to encourage more people, particularly women, to take the leap. The Leeds Reforms – named after one of our financial services' hubs and a city I'm proud to represent – will deliver the biggest package of reforms to financial services regulation in a decade. Kickstarting economic growth and putting more pounds in people's pockets. — Rachel Reeves (@RachelReevesMP) July 15, 2025 Furthermore, the Chancellor said new powers to mandate pension funds to invest in UK assets were 'sending a clear signal' that the Government and industry want to deliver higher returns for savers and more investment for the economy. 'But I am confident that I will not need to use that power because firms see the urgency and importance of this as clearly as I do,' she said. The 'Leeds reforms', unveiled in the West Yorkshire city, are set to be the biggest set of reforms to financial services for more than a decade, according to the Government. But the Chancellor concluded her speech by saying: 'As I look ahead, it is clear that we must do more. 'In too many areas, regulation still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses, choking off the enterprise and innovation that is the lifeblood of growth. 'Regulators in other sectors must take up the call I make this evening not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution but to boldly regulate for growth in the service of prosperity across our country.'
