Sir Mel Stride
MP for Central Devon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“May I welcome the Chancellor to his position and thank him for his kind remarks earlier? May I also wish him every success, because I am afraid that under this Government we need some? He will know that if we are to fix the economy, we have to fix the welfare bill.”
“Given all that is going on, this could be the last time. The legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, and unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election. The right hon.”
“The right hon. Lady cannot bring herself to answer the simple question I asked. I will tell her: she is borrowing one quarter of a trillion pounds more than the plans that she inherited—that is her legacy. We hear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is considering borrowing even more.”
“May I begin by agreeing with you, Mr Speaker, and saying how disrespectful it is that this U-turn on fuel duty has already been released to the media earlier this week?”
“Today’s announcements will bring little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, the countless businesses that have folded and the high streets that are now hollowed out.”
“The Conservative party has been campaigning for a fuel duty freeze for months. The Chancellor repeatedly rejected those calls, creating unnecessary uncertainty for motorists and businesses. Why did it take her so long to realise that putting up fuel duty during an energy crisis is a bad idea?”
The complete record
Every one of 4,446 lines we hold for Sir Mel Stride, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 89.
“The process surrounding the Budget was utterly chaotic. We had months of damaging speculation, fuelled by briefings and leaks from the Treasury itself. They included briefings on 14 November that moved markets and gave the appearance, at least, of being deliberately inaccurate, which is why we need the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate. May I ask the Chancellor a simple question? Did she at any point authorise or allow confidential details of the Budget or the forecast to be briefed to the press—yes or no?”
“The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own guidance states: “The interim rounds are transmitted to the Chancellor in confidence”. Yet the Chancellor repeatedly stated before the Budget that the OBR had downgraded its productivity forecast. In her statement in Downing Street on 4 November, she said in relation to the OBR’s forecast that “it is already clear that the productivity performance…is weaker than previously thought.” Why did the Chancellor breach the confidentiality of the OBR?”
“It didn’t exist.” The board members also clarified that those concerns were raised by Richard Hughes with the Treasury before the Budget, and that the information published on Friday was approved by the permanent secretary. What discussions did the Treasury, including the Chancellor, have with Mr Hughes immediately prior to his resignation? Mr Hughes said last week that he served “subject to the confidence of the Chancellor”. Did the Chancellor give Mr Hughes her full confidence? Was any pressure put on Mr Hughes to resign? Did the Chancellor approve the OBR’s publication on Friday and discuss it with the permanent secretary? I believe that the Minister has confirmed that, but perhaps he might do so again. [ Interruption. ]”
“Richard Hughes was a respected chair of the OBR, and his departure is a matter of deep regret. The circumstances surrounding his resignation remain unclear—although for the Chancellor, it has clearly been a useful distraction from her own conduct. On Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing the details of the pre-measures forecast rounds, and members of the OBR board were clear to the Treasury Committee yesterday that that step was taken because of serious concerns about partial leaks and briefings about their forecasts. In relation to the market-moving briefings made on 14 November, which suggested that the public finances were, after all, in a better position, David Miles stated to the Committee: “I think there had been a misconception that there had been some good news.”
“Do Ministers agree with the OBR’s opinion that leaks and briefings about the forecasts damaged growth? If so, what action was taken by the Treasury regarding those leaks? May I ask once again whether it was appropriate for the Chancellor herself to opine publicly on the OBR’s productivity forecast before the Budget, given that those matters should remain strictly confidential? As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority seeking a full investigation into matters relating to the Chancellor’s statements on the state of the public finances. I have also written again this morning to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, requesting a full investigation into all these matters.”
“Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.”
“Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter.”
“Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances? We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government.”
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare. On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November “because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”. That is not true.”
“Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report: “In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.” The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible.”
“That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying: “The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon.”
“I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10. Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards.”
“It is quite right and proper that those who are on benefits should face similar choices.”
“The film “Groundhog Day” sees Phil Connors go to a place where he wakes up every morning to the same DJ playing the same song: “I Got You Babe” by Sonny and Cher. We have a very similar situation with the Chancellor. It is groundhog day, with the Chancellor destroying the economy, putting up taxes, losing her fiscal headroom, and round and round it goes. That film was said to be a romantic comedy. Well, there has been nothing comedic about the results that this Chancellor has delivered in terms of increased unemployment, diminished living standards, higher inflation and so on. Whether the public were ever enamoured with the Chancellor, I know not, but they certainly are not now—according to the polls, she is apparently the least popular Chancellor in the history of polling on that question.”
“] There may be chuntering from those on the Front Bench, but what an irony it was that it was at the behest of the Government themselves that the Office for Budget Responsibility was invited to look into this claim and said that it would not legitimise that figure. The damage was done. The animal spirits in the economy were extinguished. Of course, they did something else that socialists down the ages always do: they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed and spent and spent and spent until they ran out of other people’s money—”
“That is absolutely true. Let us look at how we ended up at this sorry pass. In opposition, Labour assured the British electorate that they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, and when they got into power, what did they do within a few short months? They slapped taxes—£40 billion-worth—on the British people, £25 billion of that by way of national insurance increases on business alone. It is no surprise that that destroyed employment and growth. They talked down the economy. They came up with this confected £22 billion black hole. What an irony it was— [ Interruption.”
“The Minister is having trouble containing himself, such is the punishment that he is receiving at the moment. They borrowed all this money, and what did that do? It stoked inflation, and with inflation higher, interest rates have been higher for longer.”
“We have seen weeks and weeks of uncertainty generated by the Treasury, which has leaked every possible combination of tax increases and then U-turned on some of them. It has flown so many kites that it has blotted out the sun, and a huge shadow has been cast across businesses, which have pressed pause on investment and hiring. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should speak to Andy Haldane, who concludes that what I am saying is absolutely right. It has also weighed down on consumer sentiment. All this hokey-cokey around what is in the Budget has done real damage to our economy on this Government’s watch.”
“The Minister says from a sedentary position that inflation is coming down. The International Monetary Fund says that inflation will be the highest in the G7 this year and next year. We know that with high inflation, interest rates are higher for longer. That means businesses’ borrowing costs are higher. It means that consumer sentiment is dampened. It means that the servicing cost alone on the burgeoning debt that this Government are constantly adding to is currently £100 billion a year—twice what we spend on defence. In fact, if debt servicing were a Government Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall—not spending money on better public services, as we are often told by the Labour party, but simply paying for the profligacy of the Labour party when it comes to borrowing. The run-up to this Budget was a farce.”
“On growth, of course the Chancellor tells a good story. She says that the growth forecast is up compared with spring this year, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, it is down compared with the autumn of last year, when the OBR said that growth would be 2% in this year; it is now forecast to be 1.5%. In in every subsequent year, growth is forecast to be lower than was forecast back at the time of the spring statement. That is the simple fact.”
“Interestingly, he has written back to me simply to say that in the event that there are suspected leaks, of course there is an investigation. He has not quite answered my question as to whether there is an investigation being undertaken at the moment, but I will be following up with him on that matter. What has happened in this Budget? The OBR forecasts tell a sorry story: unemployment is higher in every single year of the forecast than it was forecast to be back in the spring. Inflation is up—we have seen the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. Labour is the party that talks about resolving poverty; it is a disgrace that food inflation in the last set of figures went up way above the headline rate, from 4.5% to 4.9%. That rise is being borne by some of the most vulnerable and some of the poorest in our society.”
“My right hon. and gallant Friend is entirely right, as usual, and something else has also been going on. I have written to the OBR to ask Richard Hughes exactly what happened with the information that the Treasury appears to have leaked out about the forecasts during the run-up to the Budget. I say that in the knowledge that the OBR’s own guidance says that information exchanged with the Treasury during the build-up to a Budget is provided to Ministers in confidence. Why is it then that the Chancellor herself was on the airwaves before the Budget, opining on the apparent coming downgrade to productivity? I have written to the OBR to ask whether it feels that that was appropriate. I have also written to the permanent secretary to the Treasury to ask if he is implementing an investigation into the leaks coming from the Treasury.”
“We will come on to why that is the case momentarily. What has happened to borrowing? One might have thought that the Government would have learned the lesson that ever-increasing borrowing always leads to disaster, but no: there is £11 billion of additional borrowing on average in every year of the forecast. What has that done to living standards? Real household disposable income—the economists’ measure of economic wellbeing —is down in every year of the forecast compared to the forecast in the spring. The OBR says—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will like this one—that real income growth across this forecast will be well below the average of the last decade. So this Government should not point a finger at the last one when it comes to living standards.”
“I will in a moment. It is there in black and white in the OBR’s report. The reason for that forecast is £26 billion of additional taxation in 2029-30, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, an additional £12 billion of tax take that will occur because of fiscal drag. Those higher inflationary numbers in the forecast are dragging ever more people into paying ever more tax.”
“When it comes to young people, we hear that there will be a freeze to the student loan payment thresholds. Young people are already disproportionately impacted by the changes to national insurance, particularly the reduction in the threshold that means that lower-income earners, which include younger people, will be disproportionately impacted by those tax changes. The Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line, will make it far riskier to take younger people— [ Interruption. ] Government Members should be careful what they wish for. The Labour party speaks a lot about those who are not in employment, education or training, of which there are about 940,000; that Bill will do nothing to improve their life chances. It will make things worse. It will make it more risky to take those people on and employ them.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The income tax threshold freeze—which has been extended for three years, even though the Government briefed that it would probably just be two—means 780,000 more people paying tax for the first time, because the personal allowance will be frozen for longer, and 920,000 people going into the higher rate tax bracket. In fact, by 2029-30, around one in four workers in this country will be in the higher rate tax bracket. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the measure is a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. The Chancellor herself accepted in the autumn Budget last year, when she said that she would not come forward with the measure, that it would hurt working people. She repeated that yesterday. It is very clear that this is a breach of the Labour party manifesto.”
“Salary sacrifice has been savaged, the savings tax has been put up, and the cash ISA has been cut. We are punishing savers. We will see the reverberating effects of those measures for many generations and many years to come.”
“I congratulate the hon. Lady on reading accurately from the Whips’ circular. The Opposition stand by our record— [ Interruption. ] Absolutely. When we were in government, we were a job-creating machine: there were 4 million more jobs under us than had been there before. When we left on the day of the general election, we had a near-record high level of employment and a near-record low level of unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high— [ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, but it happens to be true. One of the results of the Budget for young people is that there will continue to be a lost generation of workers. What about those who want to save, do the right thing and provide for their future in retirement? Should we not be encouraging that? What has the Budget delivered on that front?”
“It is simple; it is basic economics. Look at the taxes in the Budget placed on rental income. Do Labour Members not realise that that will lead to higher rents and fewer properties on the market? Do they not understand that if the family home is taxed, we will catch a lot of people who may be asset rich but are income poor? I suppose the solution will be to allow that liability to roll up and be paid on death—yet another death tax at the hands of this Government. What is all this pain and taxation paying for? In large part, it is paying for more welfare—it is as simple as that. Scrapping the two-child cap is a mistake and it is unfair, because those who are paying taxes, working hard and doing the right thing have to take tough choices as to whether they can afford a larger family or not.”
“My hon. Friend is precisely right. I have set out the iniquitous impacts of the reduction of the national insurance threshold on younger people, as well as the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have by increasing the risks of employing younger people. That is self-evident and obvious, and businesses are saying it over and over again. If an employer is put in a position where he is faced with a young person who has no career track record, and the Government’s legislation says that on day one the employee can take that employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal—a claim that may get clogged up for two years, and for which the lawyers advising the employer will probably conclude that he should give in and pay out, even if the merits of the case do not warrant it—that is a recipe for higher youth unemployment.”
“An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.”
“For he who has not, then to him must be given.” That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement. For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished.”
“] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers. There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time: “That for he who has, then that must be taken away.”
“The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country. When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals— [ Interruption.”
“That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government— [ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare— [ Interruption. ] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not. We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear— [ Interruption. ] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say.”
“If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about. There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well.”
“I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should. The other point to make is about inflation.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we have seen an unprecedented leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report before the Budget. The report contains market-sensitive information. It is utterly outrageous that this has happened, and the leak may indeed constitute a criminal act. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about this leak, but he refused to answer her question. Please can you advise this House on the steps at its disposal to force a leak inquiry into this matter? Would it be possible to ask the Table Office to distribute copies of the report to the House, given that everybody outside the House has already had the opportunity to read it?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.”
“Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place? Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.”
“In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room. Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings?”
“Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package. The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House.”
“I was half expecting her to blame world war two or the great war, or the Boer war, or perhaps the battle of Hastings, which surely, with the harrying of the north, must have scarred our economy and must still be being felt 1,000 years later.”
“821.] When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he reconfirm that solemn pledge the Chancellor made in the last Budget? [ Interruption. ] He could intervene now—that is true. We know that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, yet now, only about a year into the Government, we are already into the blame game. The Chancellor made an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in No. 10 Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except herself. She blamed Brexit. She blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the Office for Budget Responsibility, she even had the temerity to blame those of us on the Conservative Benches—blaming the past for the future.”
“On 25 November, at the CBI’s annual conference, she said: “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or taxes.” There has been little of that language of late, and I think we all know why. At the October Budget, the Chancellor said something else that was telling and extremely important. It is worth my repeating it in full. It relates to her clear pledge not to extend the freeze in the personal allowance under the income tax regime. She said: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c.”
“The Chancellor also said that she would not take decisions that would affect working people, yet we know from the figures released just yesterday that unemployment is at a five-year high. There are 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. Some sectors are particularly badly impacted. Some 90,000 jobs in hospitality have been destroyed, which particularly affects the youngest people in our country, who are desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder but are deprived of that opportunity by Ministers. After that calamitous Budget, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor. She said to the Treasury Committee: “we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases”. She said on Sky News that she had “wiped the slate clean”.”
“They lost it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so; when they said they would not be means-testing the winter fuel payment, yet did; and when they said they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, but did exactly that when they came into office. Indeed, in their own manifesto there were around £7 billion of tax increases, which by the time of the first Budget translated into some £40 billion of additional taxes. Of course, much of that related to employer national insurance—a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that that particular tax increase was a “straightforward breach” of the Labour party manifesto.”
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure in order to keep the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Confederation of British Industry conference on 25 November 2024 that, after the last Budget, the Government would not raise taxes; and further calls on the Government not to break its manifesto commitment that it would not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax or VAT. Right at the centre of this motion is the single word “trust”—the trust that Labour Members lost with the British electorate.”
“It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it.”
“That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited.”