The history of this spring declaration is that well-being has been reduced to compensate for a significant increase in the cost of the national debt service. There is also a cup of money given to government services.
There are relatively few others that really happens in terms of politics. There was no tax increase, no change in the loan rules for the borrowing of Chancellors Rachel Reeves and, as expected, it was certainly not a budget.
The real question is now whether the Chancellor can escape an endless cycle of micro-handicapage with the government’s independent forecastist, the Budget Liability Office (OBR) in this way, twice a year for the rest of the Parliament.
When asked if new tax increases could now come in the fall as last year, she said forcefully: “We will never have a budget like that again.”
But the figures are precarious and extremely sensitive to economic and political changes in the world.
If the United States imposes prices of 20% in the United Kingdom next week, it could lead to a demotion of the growth of the United Kingdom and to “erase” the head margin of 9.9 billion pounds sterling that the chancellor must respond to his loan rule, said the president of OBR, Richard Hughes.
Other uncertainties include higher interest rates and a drop in productivity in the United Kingdom, he said, adding that “the risks are very high”.
This is why the complete growth, confidence and economic strategy are so important.
In June, there should be new plans for trade, industry and infrastructure. In the coming weeks, there could be an economic agreement with the United States and the start of a reset of Brexit with the EU.
Despite the uncertainties, the OB’s judgment on the economy was better than expected. This year’s growth has been demoted, but near normal growth levels are expected to return in recent years.
Recognition of the OBR according to which government planning reforms could considerably stimulate the construction of the house, was considered a major victory in Downing Street.
It is a policy that does not imply taxes or expenses that should still give a huge boost to growth.
At this stage, it is not an additional brick brick or even a planning of approval, but it is a “victory of calculation sheet” which softens the budgetary pain of the Chancellor.
This results from the release of the housing objectives of local authorities and the fields of the Council.
When the planning and infrastructure bill is adopted later this year, which withdraws legal journals, there should be a new increase in expected growth.
But the test is obviously real bsages and hollowers in the ground and the plans of approved architects. This government is now all all on Bob the manufacturer.
There was a cunning focused on accounting. The lists of expenditure linked to public defense upwards and at the bottom of the United Kingdom come from the investment budget without constraint for buildings, which is essentially exempt from the non-negotiable financial rule of the Chancellor to borrow only to finance daily expenses.
But the cups of well-being are very real. The increase of 250,000 people in poverty due to reductions in health -related advantages does not include the impact of beneficiaries who obtain new jobs.
The evaluation of the impact seems to confirm that the objective of the policy consists more in saving money than the fundamental reform.
In this area and in other areas, questions arise on the question of whether the “Obr tail moves the political dog”-that is to say that this is really how long-term policy should be formed?
The overview is that it all becomes much easier if growth is coming back and the costs of interest are calm.
In the dreams of the number 11, although we assume that the debate in the fall will concern the other tax increases, it is possible that by the October budget, this can happen.
