When Rachel Reeves stood at the despatch box on Wednesday to deliver her second Budget, she announced what many in Westminster grudgingly call “realism.” The country, she warned, faced a gaping hole in public finances, a shortfall of roughly £30 billion, a fiscal chasm that demanded blunt instruments: tax hikes, spending cuts in some areas, but also renewed support for welfare and services. It is a Budget shaped by necessity. Yet again, under the banner of Labour’s social conscience, ordinary people are being asked to pay.
At a glance, there are green shoots. The abolition of the two-child benefit cap, long condemned as punitive, signals a return to Labour’s roots: a safety net for children who, through no fault of their own, were victims of austerity by another name. For low-income families with multiple children, that is undoubtedly welcome. Likewise, modest efforts to curb energy costs, freeze rail fares, and shore up public services acknowledge that millions struggle with cost-of-living pressures. In that sense, the rhetoric matches the humane aspiration: fairness, equity, the cradle-to-grave grammar of the modern welfare state.
But the devil, as ever, lies in the details. The main mechanism for raising revenue does not come from targeting the super-rich alone, but from sweeping tax-threshold freezes, pension-relief cuts, new levies on property, savings, and even electric cars. As wages creep up, more people will find themselves dragged into higher tax bands. A generation of savers, planning with pensions, ISAs, or careful investments will now face shrinking returns. The burden falls heavily on the “squeezed middle,” not on the rentier elite or offshore capital.
The result: a paradox. A Budget that cloaks itself in Labour compassion yet pursues a form of redistribution that is deeply regressive. It punishes thrift. It penalises aspiration. And it risks entrenching among working families a sense of betrayal rather than solidarity. For all its moral posturing, this might just be high-tax conservatism dressed up in red.
We may nod at the scrapping of the benefits cap, but what about the subtle erosion of hope? Pension contributions, the bedrock of long-term security for millions, are being dismantled piece by piece. Homeownership, long heralded as a path to stability, is threatened by new levies and surging property duties. The Budget asks more of the many so that the state can do more for a few; but any sensible observer must ask: has it really delivered justice, or simply managed to widen the definitions of “taxable”?
Then there is the matter of political pretence. Only last year, this same government pledged not to raise taxes on working people. Now, almost every lever has been pulled: thresholds frozen, reliefs curtailed, new charges for pension savers, landlords, electric-car owners. The language may have shifted — “contribution,” “duty,” “fair share,” but the effect is unmistakable. The promise smells of betrayal.
Does this reflect what the people wanted? It’s hard to believe so, not the people who start every morning staring down spiralling bills, who struggle with mortgages or cling to modest pensions. The polling suggests something else: a mixture of resignation, cynicism, and anger. Many hoped for an end to austerity, for fair pay, for a break from the perpetual squeeze. Instead they got a recycling of old burdens, under a different flag.
What we are witnessing is not a decisive turning point, not a reinvention of the social contract but a tired rerun. For a party that once stood for the downtrodden, this Budget feels like capitulation. A capitulation not to markets or bond-holders, but to arithmetic. The numbers don’t lie. Yet they also don’t care: about dignity, hope, generational fairness.
One could argue: at least it is honest. Better to raise taxes than to borrow recklessly or cut basic services. Perhaps. But honesty does not absolve cruelty. And budgeting is not merely arithmetic. It should be about value what we choose to hold dear when we balance the books. In that ledger, pensions, savings, and the modest dreams of working families are as legitimate as the welfare of children.
So yes — the black hole had to be filled. But this Budget does not fill it with vision. It fills it with old burdens, with stealth taxes, with deferred pain. And this in the name of tradition may mark the moment when Labour traded its soul for the books.
In the freezing of thresholds, the cutting of pension reliefs, the stealth levies lies not only optics, but a quiet unravelling of trust. Maybe the people wanted fairness not this.
No comments:
Post a Comment