Britain’s new government delivered its first budget on Wednesday setting out its plans for taxing and spending three months after coming to power in a landslide general election victory.
It is the first time the Labour party has had a chance to do this in 14 years with the Conservative party having been in power since 2010.
Wednesday’s budget could not have been more different from those that have come before and it made history for a number of reasons.
We explore the differences that set this budget apart.
Who is Rachel Reeves?
Reeves is the chancellor of the exchequer, which means she is in charge of Britain’s finances. The UK has had three women prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May and Liz Truss.
But Reeves, a former economist at the Bank of England, is the first woman to be chancellor. She began her speech recognising this important moment.
“To girls and young women everywhere, I say: ‘let there be no ceiling on your ambition, your hopes and your dreams’. And along with the pride that I feel standing here today … there is also a responsibility … to pass on a fairer society and a stronger economy to the next generation of women.”
What exactly did she say?
Reeves began by attacking the Conservative party for presiding over a period of economic decline that, she said, had left the country and its public services on its knees. Her solution to this problem was radical. She said the way to turn the country’s fortunes around was to “invest, invest, invest”, spending an extra £70bn a year. To do that, she needs money. And the money she intends to use will come from tax rises. Big tax rises. And the government also intends to borrow money. A lot of it.
So how much money will come from tax rises?
Reeves set out plans to raise £40bn. She had promised not to put these rises on “working people”, without precisely defining who she meant. Instead, she explained that most of the money will be raised from businesses, and the better off.
In Britain, people who work, and the businesses who employ them, pay a national insurance tax. This is compulsory and it is used to pay for things such as benefits, hospitals and pensions. Reeves raised the amount businesses will have to pay, saying the increase would bring in a substantial £25bn.
“I know that this is a difficult choice,” she said. “I do not take this decision lightly. We are asking businesses to contribute more, and I know that there will be impacts of this measure felt beyond businesses … but in the circumstances that I have inherited, it is the right choice to make.”
Other taxes were raised too, including capital gains tax (paid when you sell an asset for more than you bought it) and inheritance tax. Private schools will have to pay more tax, as well as people who use private jets. It was the rise in national insurance, though, that was the big ticket of the budget.
Where will this money be spent?
Britain’s hospitals and schools will get a lot more money. Reeves said she intended to provide an extra £22bn to the day-to-day running of Britain’s struggling health service. And she set out proposals to give schools an extra £6.7bn, which will be spent on buildings and new facilities. Labour has consistently criticised previous Conservative governments for starving these two core services of the money they need.
At the end of a speech that lasted for more than an hour, Reeves said: “The choices that I have made today are the right choices for our country. To restore stability to our public finances. To protect working people. To fix our NHS. And to rebuild Britain. That doesn’t mean these choices are easy. But they are responsible. This is a moment of fundamental choice for Britain.”
What will her critics say?
“We told you so,” is likely to be a familiar refrain. Rightwing critics of Labour will claim Reeves has broken promises not to raise taxes. They will deplore the fact that Britain’s taxes, which were already high, have gone up further, and say the budget is a return to the party’s “tax and spend” instincts. This has been a well-worn criticism of all Labour governments through the ages. Furthermore, the growth forecasts for the UK economy are not great – 1% or 2%, which hardly spells boom time.
Will it work?
Reeves is certainly taking a gamble, and the sums she wants to raise are enormous. But Labour’s general election victory was decisive and overwhelming, giving the party a mandate to take a new path in government. After a decade in which Britons have endured worsening public services, with no signs of any improvement, the electorate signalled it was fed up and wanted change. Reeves is steering the UK economy in a different direction. Time will tell if this turns out to be a new dawn – or a dead end.
