Reeves accused of balanced books on the back of the poorest of the United Kingdom | Spring 2025 declaration

Rachel Reeves has been accused of balanced books at the expense of the poor in his spring declaration, since the official data showed that three million families could lose £ 1,720 per year in benefits.

The chancellor confirmed cuts in the well -being of £ 4.8 billion, but insisted on the fact that the government’s priority was to restore stability to public finances in the face of the increase in global loan costs.

Economists warned that Reeves could be forced to return with more tax increases in the autumn, with the office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) stating that any rate imposed by Donald Trump can overturn their forecasts.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Thinkank, said that now there would be “six or seven months of speculation on which taxes could or could not be increased in autumn”.

“There is a cost, both economic and political, to that uncertainty,” he said.

The ministers are preparing for a Backbench rebellion against the cuts to the benefits, which should be voted in May. It is assumed that up to three dozen parliamentarians could refuse to support the government, together with possible frontbench resignations. However, with the huge majority of Labor, the proposals should pass.

The assessments of the impact of the Welfare reforms published together with the Spring Declaration have reflected the balance of other £ 500 million in the last minute savings that were forced to the government.

They showed an additional 250,000 people pushed into the relative poverty following the cuts to pay personal independence and the benefit of inability.

Paul Kissack, CEO of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has accused the chancellor of “putting the burden of the world that changes on the shoulders of those who are less able to bear the load”.

“The government must protect people from damages with the same zeal who tries to build his reputation for tax competence,” he added.

But in defense of the cuts, Reeves told the parliamentarians about the chaos that had followed the mini-budget of Liz Truss.

He said “there is nothing progressive, there is nothing of work, in the workers who pay the price of economic irresponsibility”.

In a speech that underlined the importance of defeating public finances in a rapidly change world, he promised 2.2 billion pounds for defense expenditure and said that the work was making progress in restarting economic growth.

Although the OBR halved its prediction of GDP growth from 2025 to 1% from 2% to its October budget, Reeves greeted the fact that she had revised its expectations for future years, after judging that work planning and the reforms of the construction of houses will be fine for growth.

Welfare reforms were part of a packet of measures of 14 billion pounds aimed at reconstructing £ 10 billion of pounds against the self -imposed tax rules of Reeves, in five years.

These included a new repression of the tax elimination and a close expense later in Parliament, which is very likely to lead to cuts in the unprotected government departments, intertwining a fracture of shopping in June.

Ruth Curtice, director of the foundation of the Thinkank resolution, said Reeves was right to balance the books, “he was wrong to do it on the back of the middle -income low families, on which two thirds of well -being cuts fall”.

Helen Barnard, director of politics at the Food Bank Trussell bank, said: “The insistence of the treasure to guide the social security of disabled people to balance the books through cuts to balance the books is both shocking and frightening. People in food banks tell us that they are terrified as they will survive.”

Reeves used its autumn budget to increase fees of £ 40 billion, including the controversial increase in national insurance contributions of the employer, which will come into force next month, together with a flood of increasing costs for consumers, including higher tax and energy invoices. The chancellor insisted that it should not have increased taxes on a similar staircase. “Now we have cleaned the blackboard and we will never have to make such a budget again,” he said.

Reeves has blamed the global factors for the deterioration of tax prospects since October. “The global economy has become more uncertain, bringing home insecurity, since the negotiation models become more unstable and increase the loan costs for many important economies,” he said.

Challenged for the welfare cuts in a press conference of Downing Street, the Chancellor stressed that the impact assessments did not include the effects of £ 1 billion in spending on back-to-work measurements.

“We are inserting £ 1 billion for targeted work support to bring people back to work,” he said. “So I am confident that our plans, far from increasing poverty, will actually lead to more people who satisfy the work, paying a decent salary to raise themselves and their families from poverty,” he said.

The OBR suggested that the changes would lead to a construction of houses in more than 1.3 m, which Reeves said it would put the work at the “touching distance” of its goal of 1.5 million by 2029.

The OBR said that the consequent push to GDP would bring an extra £ 3.4 billion to the treasure coffers. Using a favorite phrase by Gordon Brown, Reeves called this “growth proceeds”.

Yet the OBR clarified that if Trump triggers a global commercial war when he announces the rates next week, on what the White House will call “Liberation Dayt”, he would have blown a new hole in public finances.

The OBR warned that its worst scenario of a Tit-Per-Tat commercial war could “almost entirely eliminate” the waiter against Reeves’ tax rules, deserving economic growth.

However, the chancellor urged the public to “see where we arrive” with the United States. “The increase in rates between our economies will damage both our economies and continue to make that case for free and open trade,” he added.

Reeves and his team are prepared for a recourse against the cuts to the well -being of the Labor parliamentarians, who will be asked to support them at the votes of May.

The Labor deputy Neil Duncan-Jordan said that “last minute scarabocchi” to modify the cuts in line with the OBR predictions had “broken any illusion of a moral case for cuts”.

Poole’s deputy added: “We are talking about people’s lives here – my members are frightened. This policy will feed the social determinants of poverty that in the end create further pressure on the services that the chancellor is trying to cut”.

Connor Naismith, deputy for Crewe and Nantwich, was among those who would vote against the government.

“I did not enter politics to inflict it with the most vulnerable people of our society and I cannot vote for the changes that will have this impact,” he published on X.
“I know that many colleagues are in the same way worried about these proposed changes and continue to support the ministers that we should change course”.

Numerous other Labor parliamentarians have challenged Darren Jones, the head secretary of the treasure, for well -being cuts in a meeting after about two dozen backbenchers.

One said that the discussions were “brutal” and that Jones faced “many people who started on Pip”. About two dozens of Labor parliamentarians present, more than half a dozen criticized the cuts and up to four indicated that they would vote against them, according to the people present.

Other Labor parliamentarians said that hostile questions came from people who are regularly critical of the government.

Peter Lamb, who was among those who criticized the cuts, told the Guardian that he was worried that the ministers had not appreciated the impact of change.

“The Frontbencher do not really seem to be aware of the fact that the modifications to PIP will mean that there are those with a high level of need that will no longer be able to access the support they need for daily life,” said Crawley’s deputy.

The spokesperson for Lib dem welfare, Steve Darling, who is blindly recorded, said: “This is incredibly offensive and shows that the government does not understand the challenges that people face with disabilities”.

Mel Scrove, the chancellor shadow, accused the ministers of having “denied their promises to the British people” in the elections and said that the country was “weaker and poorer” because of their actions.