Media in Pennsylvania
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told journalists that the government needed to take a grip on social spending, visiting Rosthy
Rachel Reeves insisted on the need to “enter” the social protection bill, claiming that the system does not work for the taxpayer or the recipients.
Chancellor’s comments are involved in the midst of the concerns of labor deputies concerning the impact of the expected reductions in the social protection budget, while the government is trying to facilitate concerns among the deputies of the background.
Some deputies have told the BBC that the potential changes in payments for disabled people would be “unacceptable” and that they “would not wear it”.
The details of the plans will be unveiled next week by the secretary of work and pensions Liz Kendall, and the entire scale of the expense discounts unveiled by the Chancellor the week following in the spring press release.
Asked about the proposed well-being discounts, Reeves said: “ We are going to state our plans for the reform of well-being, but it is absolutely clear that the current system does not work for anyone … and this does not work for the taxpayer when the bill for well-being increases by billions of books in the coming years. “”
The invoice for health benefits on health and disability is currently 65 billion pounds sterling per year and is expected to increase to 100 billion pounds sterling over the next four years.
Sir Keir Starmer described the unusual, indefensible and unfair current performance system, and said the government could not “raise their shoulders and look away”.
But how the cuts are made and how far they go created discomfort.
The deputies on the left of the party called for taxes on wealth rather than social cuts, but it is a non-beginner with the Chancellor.
Some of them usually faithful to management recommended more flexibility on their tax rules to avoid painful cuts.
The self-imposed rules of Reeves, which, according to her, will bring stability to the British economy, will require daily government costs by tax income rather than by loan; And to lower the debt as a national income over a period of five years.
The appeal to soften these rules was fueled by the decision of the next German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – a center -right politician – to exempt the defense and infrastructure expenses from the country’s “braking” tadget, which restricts the loan.
In his resignation letter, the former international minister of development Annelise Dodds called for a collective discussion of the Chancellor’s tax rules and the tax approach.
This was also supported by large unions, including UNIR.
The treasure says no
Internal criticism was a source of frustration for the treasure team.
A cash source stressed the risks of this approach, stressing that borrowing costs had reached a 30 -year summit in Germany after the announcement of Merz.
The Chancellor is under a major meticulous examination before her spring declaration, in the context of a stagnant economy.
But those who are close to her believe that the suggestions of her criticisms also deserve a meticulous examination – and forcefully repel what they consider as unrealistic solutions.
If the United Kingdom followed the German example, No11 officials estimate that this could add 4 billion pounds sterling to loan costs – the budget of certain departments – and risk of higher interest rate and mortgage payments.
In other words, all hopes that certain labor deputies have had that the changes in the defense posture of the United Kingdom would unlock more loans have been very firmly annihilated.
And some Labor politicians – not on the left – who are worried about the next social cups complain about a lack of commitment from the Treasury.
The door of the No11 will remain closed to many of them.
Government sources emphasize that the deputies of the great-Ban have met the political team of No10, and the ministers of labor and pensions, who listened to their questions and their concerns.
At the ministerial level, there has also been a concern concerning the influence of the Budget Liability Office – the arbitrator who decides whether the government figures add up and if there is a “point room” to respect the tax rules.
A source suggested that he received a “God” status, with his economic forecasts treated as stone tablets.
But the number 10 and the number 11 are both aware that any interference with this independent body would be politically toxic, inviting comparisons with Liz Truss, who ignored the OBR before his disastrous mini-budget.
The sources of the Treasury emphasize that they have already changed their tax rules – modifying the definition of public debt without causing anger of the OBR.
And this has published billions more in loan for investment.
Tensions under the surface of the work will probably not back up before the government progresses more in its central mission to provide economic growth, which would reduce the need for tax increases and expense reductions.
Although just a snapshot, the January figures showing that growth takes place on the contrary is politically (if not economic), allowing opposition parties to put pressure for a change of direction.
The Conservatives and Libs DEMS want the Chancellor to abandon what they nicknamed a job tax – the increase in national insurance among employers, which is introduced next month.
They argue that it retains growth, but the chancellor will not be to turn.
In fact, its prescription for low or not growth is to go “further and faster” in the implementation of policies that have already been announced.
This includes additional deregulation and, following the abolition of NHS England, no more bodies of arm length are in its towers.
While Reeves managers pore on economic graphics before its spring declaration, they may have written a new graphic.
The one who demonstrates that economic growth and dissent of work are in the opposite proportion.
