Chancellor risks wrath of Labour backbenchers with spring statement set to confirm deeper cuts
  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
    13·
    1 month ago

    “Forced”? It is her own “rules” that are doing the forcing:

    She is also expected to squeeze future Whitehall spending plans to ensure she is on target to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules, despite weaker OBR projections

    If I went around doing something wildly unpopular because of a self-imposed people might, rightly, question my sanity.

    Some in Labour had urged Reeves to flex her fiscal rules instead of outlining future spending cuts – but the Treasury fears that any sign of indiscipline would risk spooking bond markets and driving borrowing costs up further.

    The experts I’ve heard interviewed on the radio say that is only if they increased borrowing, increasing taxes shouldn’t do that.

    At this point they have to decide if they want to piss off enough of the electorate that they won’t get voted in again or if they want the Tory press to say “Labour are bad with the economy and don’t stick to their promises” because their very wealthy mates had to cough up their fair share.

  • casmael@lemm.ee
    9·
    1 month ago

    Bro what the fuck. Government support for the disabled and disadvantaged needs to be going up not down. The government needs to be trialling universal basic income and negative council tax not reducing fucking benefits payments to the fucking disabled what is this an episode of the thick of it? What the fucking fuck we should be in the streets in yellow vests blockading Whitehall with ikea furniture fucking hell

  • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    9·
    1 month ago

    Speaks volumes that Labour’s own feasibility study found it would lead to a major increase in child poverty. And yet they have doubled down and are planning further cuts.

    Labour would rather starve marginalised people than make rich people contribute a couple tenth of percent of their vast wealth. Speaks volumes.